Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Adan Rodriguez-Lopez, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States without inspection in December 2021 and was initially apprehended by immigration officials but released on his own recognizance. He remained continuously present in the country for four years, establishing employment and community ties in Texas. On June 20, 2025, ICE re-detained him. An Immigration Judge ordered his removal on December 9, 2025, and denied his applications for asylum and withholding of removal; Rodriguez-Lopez appealed this decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, where it remains pending.
In July 2025, the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice released interim guidance interpreting INA Section 235 to mandate detention for all “applicants for admission,” regardless of whether they entered at a port of entry or without inspection. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted this position in September 2025. In February 2026, the Fifth Circuit upheld this interpretation in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, holding that Section 1225(b)(2) applies to all applicants for admission. However, that decision did not address constitutional due process challenges to the mandatory detention scheme.
Rodriguez-Lopez filed a habeas corpus petition arguing that his detention without a bond hearing violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights, emphasizing his five years of continuous residence in the United States and his prior release on recognizance, which had created an expectation of freedom during his removal proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Rodriguez-Lopez’s habeas corpus petition in part, holding that his detention violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court found that although Buenrostro-Mendez may permit mandatory detention under the statute, it does not foreclose as-applied due process challenges. The court emphasized that noncitizens subject to mandatory detention may still challenge their detention on constitutional grounds when their liberty interests warrant procedural protection.
Applying the balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that Rodriguez-Lopez possessed a substantial liberty interest in freedom from detention based on multiple factors: his continuous residence in the United States since 2021; his establishment of employment and community ties; and his prior release on his own recognizance without any violations of release conditions. The court determined that his prior release created an expectation—supported by state law and policy—that he would remain free or at least entitled to a bond hearing during his pending removal proceedings.
The court concluded that this liberty interest could not be protected by automatic or mandatory detention without individualized justification and a hearing before a neutral adjudicator. Without procedural due process safeguards, Rodriguez-Lopez’s continued detention was unconstitutional. The court ordered his immediate release by July 2, 2026, at 5:00 p.m., under his prior conditions of release, and mandated that if he is re-detained, he must be afforded procedural due process.
Key Takeaways
- As-applied due process challenges remain viable even under mandatory detention statutes, and courts may still order release on constitutional grounds when liberty interests are implicated.
- Long-term continuous residence in the United States, coupled with prior release, can create a protected liberty interest requiring individualized determination and a hearing before detention.
- Government detention of noncitizens cannot be purely automatic; fairness requires a neutral adjudicator to consider whether detention is justified in individual cases.
- Prior release on conditions creates an expectation of freedom that strengthens a noncitizen’s liberty interest during removal proceedings.
Why It Matters
This decision directly challenges the validity of the federal government’s July 2025 policy shift mandating detention for all applicants for admission without inspection, at least as applied to individuals with substantial ties to the United States. While the Fifth Circuit upheld the government’s statutory interpretation in Buenrostro-Mendez, this decision confirms that statutory authority does not override constitutional protections. The holding potentially affects thousands of immigrants subject to the post-July 2025 detention policy who have been continuously present in the United States and previously released.
The court’s emphasis on prior release and long-term residence as factors strengthening liberty interests suggests that blanket detention policies cannot be applied uniformly to all applicants for admission. Future cases may turn on whether a noncitizen has established sufficient community ties or received prior release that triggers constitutional protections. This decision aligns with multiple district courts in the Southern District of Texas and elsewhere that have similarly found due process violations in the mandatory detention scheme, signaling potential conflicts between circuit and district court precedent that may require further appellate resolution.