Reported / Citable
Background
Max Felton Logan Osorio Andrade, detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention. Osorio Andrade is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and has been in ICE custody for more than 90 days.
The respondents, including Attorney General Pamela Bondi, filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to uphold the detention. Osorio Andrade filed a reply opposing the motion.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition in part, relying on the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega (5th Cir., July 2, 2026). The court held that an individual detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) for more than 90 days is entitled to a bond hearing.
The court ordered respondents to either release Osorio Andrade or provide a bond hearing by August 10, 2026. If a hearing is held, the government must articulate an individualized justification for continued detention without bond, and must provide at least 48 hours’ notice to the petitioner and counsel. The court denied respondents’ motion for summary judgment and ordered status updates by August 17, 2026, with a final advisory due September 10, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Immigrants detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) for more than 90 days are entitled to a bond hearing under Fifth Circuit precedent.
- The government cannot hold detainees without bond indefinitely and must demonstrate individualized justification for continued detention.
- The court set specific procedural deadlines: bond hearing by August 10, 2026, and parties must file status updates by August 17, 2026.
- Summary judgment was inappropriate; factual questions regarding detention necessity require adjudication at a bond hearing.
Why It Matters
This decision applies the Fifth Circuit’s recent Sosnava Rodriguez holding to require bond hearings for detained immigrants who have exceeded the 90-day statutory window. It prevents indefinite detention without individualized judicial scrutiny and establishes procedural protections for prolonged ICE detainees, particularly in the Southern District of Texas.
The ruling signals that immigration detention practices must comply with due process requirements and that mere compliance with statutory detention authority is insufficient to justify extended detention without a bond determination. This has implications for how ICE manages its detention of individuals awaiting immigration proceedings throughout the Fifth Circuit.