Angel v. Mullin — Fifth Circuit stayed the district court judgments pending en banc rehearing

Case
Alejandro Villegas Angel v. Markwayne Mullin, et al.
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Judge
Elrod (George W. Bush, 2007); Jones (Ronald Reagan, 1985); Smith (Ronald Reagan, 1987); Stewart (Bill Clinton, 1994); Richman (George W. Bush, 2005); Southwick (George W. Bush, 2007); Haynes (George W. Bush, 2008); Graves (Barack Obama, 2011); Higginson (Barack Obama, 2011); Willett (Donald Trump, 2017); Ho (Donald Trump, 2017); Duncan (Donald J. Trump, 2018); Engelhardt (Donald J. Trump, 2018); Oldham (Donald Trump, 2018); Wilson (Donald J. Trump, 2020); Douglas (Joseph R. Biden Jr., 2022); Ramirez (Joe Biden, 2023)
Date Decided
July 21, 2026
Docket No.
26-50219
Topics
Immigration; Habeas Corpus; En Banc Rehearing; Stay Pending Review
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Alejandro Villegas Angel obtained a judgment against federal immigration officials and agencies in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. His appeal was consolidated with cases brought by Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez and Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado.

While seeking rehearing en banc, the government appellants asked the Fifth Circuit to refer their stay motion to the en banc court, expedite a ruling, and stay the district court judgments during the rehearing proceedings. The published order does not describe the district courts’ reasoning or resolve the underlying merits.

The Court’s Holding

In a per curiam order, the Fifth Circuit granted the government’s motion to stay the district court judgments pending rehearing en banc. The judgments therefore will not take effect while the en banc rehearing remains pending.

The court also granted the request for an expedited ruling on the stay motion. It denied as unnecessary the separate request to refer the motion to the en banc court.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fifth Circuit stayed the district court judgments pending rehearing en banc.
  • The court expedited its consideration of the stay request.
  • The order addresses interim relief only and does not decide the underlying merits.

Why It Matters

The order preserves the government’s position while the full Fifth Circuit considers the consolidated immigration cases. Because the court supplied no merits analysis, the order should not be read as a final ruling on the legality of the challenged government action or the petitioners’ entitlement to relief.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top