Full Fifth Circuit Upholds Trump Mandatory Detention Policy, Says No Right to a Bond Hearing

The full US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Friday upheld the Trump administration policy of mandatory detention for noncitizens, ruling 10 to 7 that due process does not entitle three migrant men to bond hearings. The en banc decision vacated the district court orders that had released the men and reversed a panel ruling that had required hearings.

What the majority held

Judge Cory Wilson wrote the majority opinion, joined by eight colleagues, and Judge Priscilla Richman concurred in the result. Wilson wrote that the petitioners, having never been lawfully admitted to the country, are not entitled to additional process concerning their admission beyond what Congress provided in section 1225 of the immigration statute. He wrote that whether a detainee is dangerous or a flight risk is immaterial under that section, because the statute does not turn on those factors, and that the length of their detention presented no constitutional problem requiring release. Wilson also wrote that detainees can leave detention at any moment by agreeing to leave the country.

"Controlling illegal immigration is, no doubt, an important and controversial issue of public policy," the majority said. "But the Constitution entrusts broad authority to delineate immigration policy, and to design proceedings to effectuate those policy choices, to Congress, not court."

The three men at the center of the case

The case, Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega, was brought by three longtime residents who were detained after routine encounters in late 2025 and early 2026. Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez is a Mexican national who has lived in the United States for more than 22 years and was detained at the T. Don Hutto Detention Center in Texas. Alejandro Villegas Angel is a Mexican national who has lived in the United States since 2011. The third petitioner is a Honduran national with a US citizen child. District judges granted their habeas petitions and ordered them released. The en banc court stayed those orders and has now reversed them. The men are represented by the National Immigration Project, the American Immigration Council and Garza and Narvaez PLLC.

How the case reached the full court

A Fifth Circuit panel upheld the detention policy in February 2026 on statutory grounds. District judges then began granting habeas claims on constitutional due process grounds, and a three judge panel ruled in July 2026 that the men could not be held for more than 90 days without a bond hearing. The full court vacated that panel decision, heard the due process question en banc, and ruled for the government on Friday.

Dissents and reaction

Seven judges dissented. Judge Leslie Southwick wrote that the majority built "an impenetrable wall between the Constitution and these long-term residents." Bloomberg Law reported that all seven dissenters were appointed by Democratic presidents or by President George W. Bush.

The policy is a central part of the administration mass deportation program, and thousands of people are detained in Fifth Circuit states, above all Texas and Louisiana. Bloomberg Law noted that the court is an outlier: only one other circuit has upheld the policy, while nine have ruled against it. The Supreme Court has agreed to consider a separate question, whether the scheme correctly interprets the statute.

Rebecca Cassler, a senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council who argued the case, said: "Today's ruling is an affront to the U.S. Constitution. If the government wants to detain someone, it has to explain why depriving them of their liberty is necessary. And anyone who is detained has the right to ask a judge for review of that detention."