Reported / Citable
Background
Harjit Singh, a detainee in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued detention. Singh is being held under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and has been detained for more than 90 days. The respondents, including ICE officials and Randy Tate, filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to uphold the detention.
The case was decided against the backdrop of a recent Fifth Circuit opinion, Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega, decided July 2, 2026, which addressed the rights of immigration detainees held beyond the 90-day threshold.
The Court’s Holding
The district court granted Singh’s habeas petition in part, holding that he is entitled to a bond hearing based on his detention exceeding 90 days. The court relied on Fifth Circuit precedent establishing that immigrants detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) for more than 90 days have a constitutional right to a bond hearing.
The court ordered that the government must either release Singh from custody or conduct a bond hearing by August 7, 2026. Critically, the government cannot justify continued detention through blanket policy; instead, it “must articulate an individualized justification for further detention without bond.” The government must provide at least 48 hours’ notice to Singh and his counsel before any bond hearing or release. The court denied the respondents’ motion for summary judgment and set a timeline for status updates: a joint update by August 14, 2026, and an advisory by September 8, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Immigration detainees held beyond 90 days under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) are entitled to habeas corpus relief and a bond hearing as a matter of right.
- The government cannot rely on detention authority alone; it must provide individualized justification for continued detention, not a categorical detention policy.
- Due process requires adequate notice—at least 48 hours—before a bond hearing or release.
Why It Matters
This decision reflects the Fifth Circuit’s evolving stance on due process protections for immigration detainees, limiting ICE’s authority to hold individuals indefinitely without hearings. The requirement for individualized justification signals judicial scrutiny of blanket detention practices, even when authorized by statute. For immigration practitioners, the decision clarifies that prolonged detention triggers constitutional protections that respondents cannot sidestep through summary procedures.
The case carries broader implications for immigration detention policy, suggesting courts will enforce meaningful bond hearings and challenge extended detention without particularized findings of flight risk or danger. This is particularly significant given the volume of immigration cases in the Fifth Circuit.