Background
Three nationals—Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez (Mexican, entered 2004), Alejandro Villegas Angel (Mexican, entered 2011), and Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado (Honduran, entered 2012)—each entered the United States without inspection and had resided here unlawfully for over a decade. All three had no criminal history, were fathers of U.S. citizen children, and had sought or intended to seek cancellation of removal. Each was arrested during routine traffic stops and transferred to ICE custody between November 2025 and February 2026.
In September 2025, following the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, the Department of Homeland Security reinterpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) to mandate detention of all aliens who entered without inspection, regardless of how long they had evaded apprehension or established residence in the country. This reversed a 29-year practice of allowing such resident aliens to seek bond release under § 1226(a). The government now classified the three men—despite their decade-long U.S. residence—as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention without bond.
The three filed habeas corpus petitions in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The district courts granted relief, concluding that mandatory detention without individualized bond hearings violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. All three were released from custody in February and March 2026. The government appealed, and the cases were consolidated for expedited review.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district courts’ grants of habeas corpus. The court held that these aliens—despite never being formally “admitted” to the United States—are constitutional “persons” entitled to Fifth Amendment due process protections by virtue of their physical presence and established connections in the country. Statutory admission status does not determine constitutional rights; physical presence and ties to the community do.
The court grounded its holding in over a century of precedent confirming that the Due Process Clause protects “all persons within the United States,” including unlawfully present aliens. The three aliens, each with over 10 years of residence, U.S. citizen children, and no criminal history, easily satisfied this standard. The court distinguished its earlier precedent in DHS v. Thuraissigiam (2020), where an alien apprehended 25 yards into the country had minimal connections, reasoning that Thuraissigiam does not eliminate protections for residents who “have acquired any domicil or residence within the United States.”
Critically, the court rejected the government’s argument that § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory detention language eliminates any constitutional procedural protections. The Constitution is supreme; statutes must conform to it, not vice versa. Because liberty from detention is a fundamental substantive right, the aliens are entitled to individualized bond hearings to determine their dangerousness and risk of flight. The district courts properly applied the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test and correctly concluded the detention violated due process. The court affirmed the release orders and the prohibition on re-detention without a hearing.
Key Takeaways
- Aliens with long-term physical presence and established connections in the United States—including those unlawfully present—are entitled to Fifth Amendment due process protections regardless of admission status.
- Statutory text authorizing mandatory detention cannot override fundamental constitutional rights; the Constitution is the supreme law and constrains agency policy.
- Individualized bond hearings assessing dangerousness and flight risk are constitutionally required for resident aliens facing detention, not agency determinations alone.
- The Fifth Circuit reaffirmed the “physical presence rule” established since 1903, rejecting arguments that recent Supreme Court precedent eliminated it for long-term residents.
Why It Matters
This decision has immediate practical consequences. The opinion notes that DHS had detained thousands of undocumented resident aliens under § 1225(b)(2)(A) following the 2025 policy shift. The court’s ruling requires that all such detainees—those with long-term U.S. residence and established connections—receive bond hearings rather than indefinite detention. Immigration practitioners representing such clients can now demand hearings to challenge detention, shifting the burden to the government to prove dangerousness or flight risk before continued confinement.
The decision reflects a principle of constitutional hierarchy: the government cannot reinterpret statutes to evade constitutional protections. Although DHS v. Thuraissigiam (2020) confined due process rights for aliens at the border, that precedent does not extend to residents with decade-long U.S. ties. For government agencies and immigration courts, blanket mandatory detention policies must be tempered with individualized proceedings satisfying due process for aliens with substantial community connections. The ruling signals that recent policy changes by the executive branch do not alter the underlying constitutional landscape—a principle with implications across administrative law.