Three men were pulled over during routine traffic stops in Texas. All had lived in the United States for more than a decade. All had jobs. All were fathers of American citizen children. After each stop, state troopers handed them to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which placed them in detention with no opportunity to appear before a judge.
On 2 July 2026, the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Constitution does not allow that to continue beyond 90 days.
The 2-1 decision by the New Orleans-based court held that ICE cannot detain immigrants under its mandatory detention policy for more than 90 days without granting them a bond hearing before an immigration judge. At that hearing, the government must provide an individualised justification for continued detention: evidence the person is a flight risk or a danger to the community. Detention based solely on how a person entered the country is not enough.
The ruling could affect thousands of people held by ICE in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, the three states within the 5th Circuit’s jurisdiction, and represents the most significant judicial check yet on one of the Trump administration’s central immigration enforcement tools.
What triggered the ruling?
The mandatory detention policy at the centre of the case was introduced by the Department of Homeland Security in July 2025. It rested on a reinterpretation of federal immigration law: DHS argued that non-citizens already living inside the United States, not just those arriving at the border, qualify as “applicants for admission” under the Immigration and Nationality Act, making them subject to mandatory detention without a bond hearing while their deportation cases proceed.
What is mandatory detention?
What is mandatory detention?
Under the Trump administration’s July 2025 policy, ICE classified non-citizens living in the US interior as “applicants for admission” under INA Section 235(b). This triggered mandatory detention, meaning they could be held indefinitely without appearing before an immigration judge. Previously, most non-citizens in removal proceedings were entitled to a bond hearing at which a judge would weigh whether to release them. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted this interpretation in September 2025, directing immigration judges to apply it nationwide.
The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted the DHS interpretation in September 2025. Federal courts were immediately flooded with habeas corpus petitions from detainees challenging their confinement. More than 58,000 immigrants held by ICE have now filed such petitions across the country.
Judge Leslie Southwick, a George W. Bush appointee writing for the majority, grounded the ruling in the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. “It is part of the historic majesty of this long-ago founding charter that it makes no exceptions in providing basic rights to those within our boundaries, including a right to be heard when personal liberty is taken,” he wrote.
Judge James Graves, an Obama appointee, agreed with the outcome but said in a separate opinion that 90 days was still too long and that detainees should receive hearings within 30 days.
Judge Cory Wilson, a Trump appointee, dissented. He argued the majority was marginalising Congress’s express authority over immigration matters.
Where the law now stands
Thursday’s ruling is the latest in a series of conflicting decisions across the federal appeals system. Six circuits have now ruled against the mandatory detention policy in whole or in part. Two have upheld it.
| Circuit | States covered | Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| 2nd Circuit | New York, Connecticut, Vermont | Against mandatory detention |
| 3rd Circuit | Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware | Against mandatory detention |
| 4th Circuit | Virginia, Maryland, North and South Carolina | Against mandatory detention |
| 5th Circuit (2 July 2026) | Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi | Bond hearing required within 90 days |
| 6th Circuit | Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee | Against mandatory detention |
| 8th Circuit | Arkansas and Midwest states | Upholds mandatory detention |
| 11th Circuit | Florida, Alabama, Georgia | Against mandatory detention |
A circuit split of this scale almost always ends at the Supreme Court. The Trump administration filed a petition on 26 June 2026 asking the Supreme Court to uphold the mandatory detention policy nationwide, before Thursday’s ruling was even handed down. DHS said in a statement it disagrees with the 5th Circuit’s decision and “is confident in its legal position regarding mandatory detention.”
Rebecca Cassler of the American Immigration Council, which represented the three Texas men, said the panel had “recognised the core constitutional principle that the Due Process Clause does not allow the government to lock them away indefinitely.”
What happens next
The three men at the centre of the case, Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez, Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado and Alejandro Villegas Angel, were released from ICE custody by district court judges earlier this year after those courts granted their habeas petitions. The Trump administration appealed, producing Thursday’s ruling.
ICE has expanded its detention operations significantly under Trump’s second term. As of April 2026, more than 60,000 people were held in ICE detention on any given day, a 75% increase from when Trump took office. Texas holds the largest number of ICE detainees of any state, according to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
The Supreme Court is expected to take the mandatory detention question. If it does, its ruling will set one standard for the entire country, either restoring bond hearings everywhere or removing them even in circuits where courts have so far ruled against the policy. Until that ruling comes, whether a detained immigrant has a right to a bond hearing depends almost entirely on which state they are held in.
What this means for immigrants in the US
The ruling is procedural, not substantive. It does not prevent ICE from arresting and detaining people. It does not change the underlying immigration enforcement environment. What it does is restore a constitutional floor: no one can be held indefinitely without being given a chance to argue their case before a judge.
For the tens of thousands of immigrants currently held in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, many of whom have lived and worked in the United States for years and have American citizen family members, Thursday’s ruling means that after 90 days, the government must justify their continued detention or release them on bond.
