The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled 10–7 on Friday that people detained under a key immigration statute have no constitutional right to an individualized hearing at which they could seek release on bond. The court opinion, issued in three consolidated cases, reverses a July panel decision that required such hearings within 90 days. The ruling is binding across Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi and removes a major constitutional route to release for detainees covered by the decision, Reuters reported.
What the court decided
The cases involved three men who had lived in the United States for years after entering without inspection and were later detained while removal proceedings were pending. Federal district judges had ordered their release and barred immigration authorities from detaining them again without hearings on whether each person posed a danger or flight risk. A three-judge Fifth Circuit panel upheld that relief in July and set a 90-day threshold, but the full court vacated the panel decision and reheard the cases.
Writing for the majority, Judge Cory Wilson said the men were “applicants for admission” under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) of federal immigration law because they had never been lawfully admitted. The majority concluded that the statute mandates detention during removal proceedings and that the Fifth Amendment does not require added proceedings beyond those Congress provided. The court therefore reversed the district judges and vacated the habeas relief. Its holding addresses a constitutional claim; it does not decide whether every immigration detainee falls under the same detention statute.
Seven judges dissented. Judge Dana Douglas wrote that the majority’s approach could permit prolonged or indefinite detention without an individualized assessment. Immigration advocates called the ruling a major setback, arguing in a joint response that the government should have to justify civil detention before a neutral decision-maker. The majority, by contrast, said Congress has broad authority over admission and that people in the petitioners’ position could end their detention by agreeing to leave the country.
Why the ruling matters
The immediate geographic reach is unusually consequential because Texas and Louisiana contain many of the nation’s immigration detention facilities. The decision also hardens a split among federal courts over a policy the Department of Homeland Security adopted in July 2025. Under that policy, people who entered without inspection can be treated as applicants for admission and held without bond even when immigration officers arrest them years later inside the country.
That policy departed from a nearly three-decade practice under which many such people were detained under a different provision, Section 1226(a), that permits bond. Courts around the country have reached conflicting conclusions, generating tens of thousands of federal cases and thousands of rulings against the government, according to earlier reporting. The new Fifth Circuit decision means detainees in its three states cannot rely on the 90-day constitutional rule the court’s panel announced in July.
What happens next
The Supreme Court has already agreed to review the administration’s interpretation of the statute in Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha. The official court docket shows that review was granted on Oct. 1, and a legal explainer describes the question as whether Section 1225(b)(2)(A) reaches people arrested in the interior after entering without inspection.
That Supreme Court case concerns statutory interpretation, not the separate Fifth Amendment question decided Friday. If the justices reject the administration’s reading of Section 1225, many detainees could instead fall under the bond-permitting framework of Section 1226(a), reducing the practical reach of Friday’s constitutional holding. If the justices uphold the administration’s reading, the Fifth Circuit decision would leave detainees in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi without a constitutional entitlement to bond hearings while their removal cases proceed.
The timing of Supreme Court briefing and argument has not yet been announced on the public docket. Until the justices rule, the legal landscape will remain divided by geography, with Friday’s decision controlling in the Fifth Circuit and other appellate decisions continuing to govern elsewhere.
