The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that three illegal immigrants who had lived in the United States for more than a decade cannot be held for more than 90 days under immigration detention without a bond hearing.
The men, who entered the country illegally years ago, had no criminal records, were fathers of U.S. citizen children, and were detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after traffic stops.
Following a 2025 policy change, the government argued they were subject to mandatory detention without bond under federal immigration law because they had never been legally admitted to the country.
In a 2–1 decision, the appeals court affirmed lower court rulings that the detention was unlawful.
“Our only requirement is that a hearing must be held within 90 days of the commencement of detention and that at the hearing, the Government must articulate an individualized justification for further detention without bond,” Judge Leslie Southwick stated in the majority opinion.
The majority held that although Congress may require detention of certain immigrants, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause still protects illegal immigrants who have established long-term residence in the United States.
The court concluded that prolonged detention without an individualized hearing to determine whether someone poses a danger or flight risk violates constitutional due process. The judges said the ruling does not halt removal proceedings but requires the government to provide a bond hearing after an unreasonable period of detention.
The court distinguished the case from Supreme Court decisions involving newly arrived migrants stopped at the border or criminal immigrants subject to mandatory detention.
“In summary, aliens who arrive at an ‘international airport’ or walk a dozen steps onto United States soil, are not, by sheer dint of crossing a boundary line, cloaked in the full protection of the United States Constitution,” the majority judges wrote. “The present case, though, has no such nuances that need addressing. Entry and residence, not legal admission, dictate the extent of the Constitution’s application. These aliens have each lived on United States soil for over a decade, had children in the United States, owed obedience to the laws of this country, and are, as a result, entitled to the protections of the Due Process Clause.”
In dissent, Judge Cory Wilson said Congress has broad authority over immigration, that the petitioners were lawfully subject to mandatory detention under federal statute, and that the relatively brief length of their detention did not violate the Constitution.
“The panel majority, like the district courts before it, invents a nebulous rule that has no administrable limits and little consistency with, in my reading at least, applicable precedent or the Constitution,” Wilson said. “Today’s decision deputizes every district court in our circuit to refashion the removal process as it sees fit, inviting even more chaos into our circuit’s overwhelmed immigration dockets.”
