Reported / Citable
Background
Francisco Guerrero Velasquez is detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Montgomery Processing Center in Conroe, Texas, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). He filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the legality of his detention. The government respondents, including Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the petition.
Velasquez had been detained for more than 90 days at the time of the filing. His counsel argued that prolonged detention without a hearing violated due process rights.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the habeas corpus petition in part, relying on the Fifth Circuit’s recent precedent in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega, 2026 WL 1906557 (5th Cir. July 2, 2026). The court held that detainees held for more than 90 days under § 1225(b)(2)(A) are statutorily entitled to a bond hearing.
The government must either release Velasquez or provide a bond hearing by August 7, 2026. If a hearing is held, the government must “articulate an individualized justification for further detention without bond” rather than rely on automatic detention policies. The government must provide at least 48 hours’ written notice to Velasquez and his counsel before any hearing or release. The court denied the government’s motion for summary judgment and set deadlines for status updates and final disposition of the case.
Key Takeaways
- Detainees held under § 1225(b)(2)(A) for more than 90 days have a statutory entitlement to a bond hearing under Fifth Circuit precedent.
- The government cannot rely on categorical detention policies; it must provide individualized justification for continued detention.
- Habeas corpus relief is available to challenge prolonged immigration detention without a hearing.
- Clear procedural requirements and timelines apply: bond hearing within 30 days or release, with 48 hours’ advance notice.
Why It Matters
This decision implements binding Fifth Circuit precedent that constrains immigration detention authority. ICE cannot automatically detain immigrants indefinitely after 90 days; the government must justify detention on a case-by-case basis. This creates a meaningful constitutional check on detention power and guarantees a hearing before an independent tribunal.
The decision signals that courts will enforce due process protections in immigration detention cases, particularly when detention exceeds extended periods. Practitioners challenging prolonged immigration detention can cite this precedent to demand bond hearings and individualized adjudications rather than categorical detention policies.