Reported / Citable
Background
Apolinar Sanchez Lopez, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States without inspection in 2004 and had lived continuously in Oklahoma since then. ICE arrested him in Oklahoma City on May 19, 2026, served him with a notice to appear, and placed him in immigration custody. An immigration judge ordered his removal, but Sanchez Lopez’s appeal remained pending.
Sanchez Lopez had been detained for five months without an individualized bond hearing. He represented, without contradiction from the government, that he had no criminal history. He also cited his long residence, his role as primary medical caregiver for his wife, his U.S.-citizen granddaughter living in his home, and his more than decade-long service as a pastor and religious leader.
The Court’s Holding
Judge John A. Kazen granted Sanchez Lopez’s habeas petition and denied the respondents’ summary-judgment motion. The court held that, as applied to Sanchez Lopez, continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without constitutionally adequate procedures violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
The court concluded that Sanchez Lopez’s residence in the United States since 2004 established a protected liberty interest requiring an individualized determination whether he posed a danger or flight risk. It relied on its earlier decisions holding that Fifth Circuit precedent interpreting § 1225 did not foreclose as-applied due-process challenges. Rather than order a bond hearing, the court ordered his release by October 26, 2026, subject to reasonable release conditions, reasoning that a later hearing would not remedy the deprivation and that immigration judges would likely lack jurisdiction to conduct one under the BIA’s position.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen detained under § 1225(b) may raise an as-applied procedural due-process challenge to prolonged mandatory detention.
- For this petitioner, 22 years of continuous U.S. residence created a liberty interest requiring individualized justification for civil detention.
- The court ordered release, not a bond hearing, after finding five months of detention without an individualized hearing unconstitutional.
Why It Matters
The order adds to Southern District of Texas decisions allowing due-process challenges to mandatory immigration detention despite the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of § 1225 in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi. It treats that statutory ruling as distinct from whether detention procedures satisfy the Constitution.
The court also declined to treat an unexplained Fifth Circuit stay in related litigation as controlling on the merits. The decision underscores that, in this court’s view, the remedy for an established procedural due-process violation may be release rather than a belated bond hearing.