The full Fifth Circuit ruled on October 23 that people who entered without being admitted have no constitutional right to bond. The Supreme Court is reviewing the same legal question.
The full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on October 23, 2026, that people detained under section 1225(b)(2)(A) of immigration law have no constitutional right to a bond hearing, according to the court opinion. The case, identified as Sosnava Rodriguez (No. 26-50183), was consolidated with two others.
What the court decided
The majority concluded that the three petitioners were never “admitted” into the country. It therefore treats them as applicants for admission under section 1225 and holds that they cannot demand more process than Congress provided in that statute. According to the ruling, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained all three after a traffic stop.
The court also declined to treat the six-month mark in a Supreme Court precedent as a fixed limit on detention before deportation. To reach that conclusion, it relied on its own earlier decision, Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, from 2026.
How the case got here
On July 2, 2026, a three-judge panel of the same circuit had granted a habeas petition in favor of the detainees and found that detention becomes unconstitutional when it is prolonged unreasonably without a bond hearing. On July 10, a majority of the circuit’s judges voted to rehear the case en banc, which vacated the panel’s opinion.
The October 23 decision reverses that result. The Fifth Circuit covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, so the ruling applies to federal courts in those three states.
The Supreme Court is already reviewing the underlying question
On October 1, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha (No. 26-104). The question presented is whether section 1225(b)(2)(A) requires detaining people who are in the U.S. without having been admitted while deportation proceedings are pending.
That case comes from the Second Circuit, which ruled against the government on April 28, 2026. As of October 5 there was no decision on the merits, and no date for oral argument has been confirmed. Appeals courts have not resolved the question uniformly: the Supreme Court’s decision will determine whether the Fifth Circuit’s or the Second Circuit’s approach prevails.
What does it mean to you?
- If you live in Texas, Louisiana, or Mississippi and ICE detains someone who entered without being admitted, that court will no longer require a bond hearing solely because of the time the person has been detained.
- The ruling is not the last word: the Supreme Court must decide the underlying question in case 26-104.
- In other circuits, the rules may differ. What applies to a person depends on their case and where they are detained.
- This note explains the general rule and is not legal advice. If you or a family member are detained, consult an immigration attorney or an accredited legal services organization.
Legal notice: This information is general and does not replace the advice of a licensed immigration attorney or a representative accredited by the Department of Justice.
