On 23 October 2026 the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara, Nos. 26-50183, 26-50219 and 26-50221 (consolidated). Seventeen judges sat. Judge Cory T. Wilson wrote for the majority, joined by Chief Judge Elrod and Judges Jones, Smith, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt and Oldham. Judge Richman concurred in the judgment. Judges Southwick, Stewart, Graves, Higginson, Douglas, Ramirez and Haynes dissented. That is 10 to 7.
The three cases
Each petitioner had lived in the United States without inspection or admission for years and was detained by ICE after a traffic stop: a Mexican national here more than 22 years, a Mexican national here since 2011 with two U.S.-citizen children, and a Honduran national here since 2012 with one U.S.-citizen child. All three were held under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which says an “applicant for admission” who is not clearly entitled to be admitted “shall be detained” pending removal proceedings. District courts in the Western District of Texas granted habeas, ordered them released and barred re-detention without a bond hearing. A divided three-judge panel affirmed and set a 90-day deadline for such hearings. The full court then took the case on its own motion and stayed those orders.
What the majority held
- The petitioners, “having never been lawfully admitted to the country, are not entitled to additional process concerning their admission beyond what Congress provided in § 1225(b)(2)(A).”
- Even if they were, procedural due process would not entitle them to a bond hearing on dangerousness or flight risk, which the court called “immaterial” to detention under that section.
- “The duration of Petitioners’ detention presents no constitutional defect requiring habeas relief to correct it.”
- The district courts’ judgments are reversed and the habeas orders vacated. The mandate issues “forthwith.”
The majority left room for challenges on “factual questions” about whether someone is in fact an applicant for admission, or on “other legal grounds not before us.”
“The Constitution entrusts broad authority to delineate immigration policy, and to design proceedings to effectuate those policy choices, to Congress—not courts.” — Fifth Circuit en banc majority, 23 October 2026
The dissents
Judge Southwick, for six judges, said the court is divided on whether the Constitution allows every unauthorized migrant in removal proceedings to be held for the length of those proceedings, “however long.” Judge Haynes would have limited relief to people like these petitioners: residents of more than ten years with no criminal history and close American relatives. Judges Douglas and Higginson wrote separate dissents. Judge Higginson’s opens with the Supreme Court’s description in Jennings v. Rodriguez of the statute’s two-part detention framework.
Where this fits
The Supreme Court granted review on 1 October in Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104, a Second Circuit case on whether people arrested inside the country fall under § 1225 mandatory detention at all. The Fifth Circuit answers a different, constitutional question for people already held under that section. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Rhoney could change the ground under this one.
What this piece refuses
Do not write that the court ruled migrants have “no rights” or “no due process.” The holding is about bond hearings under one statute, and the majority expressly leaves other challenges open. Do not say the ruling applies nationwide. It binds the Fifth Circuit only. We have not reported how many detainees it affects, because the opinion does not give a figure.
Bottom line
Verified from the en banc opinion filed 23 October 2026 (Doc. 306-1, No. 26-50183): the Fifth Circuit ruled 10–7 that people detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) have no due process right to a bond hearing, however long they are held. It reversed three Texas habeas grants, and seven judges dissented.
