Fifth Circuit Limits ICE Detention Without Bond Hearings To 90 Days
A Fifth Circuit panel ruled 2-1 on Thursday that ICE cannot detain certain migrants for more than 90 days without a chance to seek bond while their removal cases proceed.[1]
Judge Leslie Southwick wrote the majority opinion and relied on a 2001 Supreme Court decision to say the Fifth Amendment's due process clause protects noncitizens inside the United States.[1] The case concerns two Mexican citizens and one Honduran who were detained within the Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction.[1] Judge Cory Wilson dissented, and the Department of Homeland Security said it disagrees with the ruling and is confident in its legal position.[1]
In July 2025, ICE issued a memo saying anyone who entered without inspection could be treated as an "applicant for admission" and subject to mandatory detention without bond eligibility. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted that position in Matter of Yajure Hurtado in September 2025. On February 6, 2026, a divided Fifth Circuit upheld the administration's statutory reading in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi but left the constitutional due process question open. District courts in Texas then granted habeas relief to longtime residents on Fifth Amendment grounds, and the government appealed, producing the consolidated cases that produced this week's ruling.
The administration has already sought Supreme Court review in a similar case, and the decision makes a high court fight more likely.
The mainstream summary does not mention the significant scale of ICE detention, which held 60,311 individuals as of April 2026, following record highs earlier that year. This context underscores the importance of the Fifth Circuit's ruling, as it directly impacts a substantial number of detainees, many of whom lack prior criminal records—over 50,000 out of approximately 68,000 in early February 2026. This detail highlights the ruling's potential to affect a large demographic of noncitizens who may now have a chance to seek bond, contrasting with the mainstream framing that focuses primarily on the legal proceedings without addressing the broader implications for detainees.
Furthermore, while the summary notes the dissenting opinion and the administration's disagreement, it does not convey the ruling's practical implications as highlighted by immigration litigator Nicolette Glazer, who pointed out that the Department of Homeland Security must now provide individualized justifications for continued detention. This requirement could lead to significant changes in how ICE operates, suggesting a shift in the balance of power regarding detention policies that the mainstream account does not fully explore. The ruling thus represents not just a legal victory but a potential shift in the treatment of thousands of migrants in the affected states, which the summary downplays.
Show source details & analysis (1 source)
📊 Relevant Data
ICE held 60,311 people in detention as of April 4, 2026, following record daily highs exceeding 73,400 in mid-January 2026 and a population of approximately 71,000 in January 2026.
Immigration Detention Quick Facts — TRAC Immigration
More than 50,000 of the roughly 68,000 people in ICE detention in early February 2026 lacked any prior criminal record.
Reclassifying 'Applicants for Admission' — Forum Together
📌 Key Facts
- On Thursday, July 2, 2026, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled 2-1 that ICE cannot detain certain immigrants for more than 90 days without a chance to seek bond while removal proceedings are pending.
- Judge Leslie Southwick’s majority opinion cited a 2001 Supreme Court decision and held that the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause protects noncitizens within U.S. borders.
- The case involves two Mexican citizens and one Honduran detained in the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction, and the ruling potentially affects thousands held under the administration’s expanded "applicants for admission" mandatory-detention policy.
- Judge Cory Wilson dissented, and the Department of Homeland Security said it disagrees with the ruling and is confident in its legal position on mandatory detention.
📰 Source Timeline (1)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time