Federal Appeals Court Rules Immigrants Detained Over 90 Days Must Receive Bond Hearing

In a significant decision affecting immigration detention within the Fifth Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that certain noncitizens who remain detained for more than 90 days while their removal proceedings are pending are entitled to an individualized bond hearing. The ruling reinforces constitutional due process protections and could impact detention practices in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

Overview of the Decision

The Fifth Circuit concluded that prolonged immigration detention without an opportunity to seek release violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

• The ruling was issued in a 2-1 decision.
• Immigrants detained for more than 90 days must receive an individualized bond hearing.
• The government must demonstrate why continued detention is justified rather than relying on automatic detention.
• The decision applies within the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit, including Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

What the Court Held

The Fifth Circuit determined that constitutional due process protections extend to all individuals physically present in the United States, regardless of immigration status.

Although immigration statutes may authorize mandatory detention for certain individuals, the court held that prolonged detention without an individualized hearing raises serious constitutional concerns.

• Bond hearings must occur after 90 days of detention.
• The government bears the burden of justifying continued detention.
• An immigration judge must evaluate each case individually.
• The ruling emphasizes constitutional due process rather than changing underlying immigration statutes.

Background of the Case

The litigation arose from the federal government's position that many noncitizens already living in the United States could be treated as 'applicants for admission,' making them subject to mandatory detention without bond during removal proceedings.

Earlier this year, another Fifth Circuit panel upheld the statutory interpretation allowing mandatory detention. However, that earlier decision did not address whether prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates the Constitution.

The new ruling fills that gap by holding that even where mandatory detention is initially authorized, continued detention without judicial review may violate due process once detention becomes prolonged.

What Happens Next

The Department of Homeland Security has disagreed with the ruling and maintains that its interpretation of immigration law is correct.

Because federal appellate courts have reached differing conclusions regarding prolonged immigration detention, the issue could ultimately be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why This Decision Matters

The ruling provides an important procedural safeguard for immigrants facing prolonged detention while their removal proceedings remain pending. It does not terminate removal proceedings or guarantee release from custody. Instead, it ensures that an immigration judge evaluates whether detention should continue based on the individual facts of each case.

For detained immigrants and their families, the decision may provide an opportunity to seek release while immigration proceedings continue, particularly in jurisdictions covered by the Fifth Circuit.