Office Location is Irving, Texas and Albuquerque, New Mexico
Stay updated on the latest immigration news and policy changes. See what's changed.
Office Location is Irving, Texas and Albuquerque, New Mexico
Key summary:
A major legal shift has arrived for individuals living in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. On July 2, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a landmark decision in Sosnava-Rodriguez v. Ortega.
The court ruled that the federal government cannot hold long-term interior resident immigrants indefinitely without a bond hearing, establishing a strict 90-day constitutional limit. This ruling is expected to impact thousands of ongoing and future cases across the region.
The impact of Sosnava-Rodriguez, goes back to July 2025, when the federal government adjusted its enforcement strategy, treating interior residents who had originally entered the country without inspection under the strict laws reserved for “applicants for admission” at the border.
Under this interpretation, the government argued that federal statutes stripped these individuals of their eligibility to request a bond. As a result, noncitizens with deep roots in the United States, many with U.S. citizen children, stable jobs, and no criminal records, were subject to mandatory, ongoing detention after routine interior encounters, such as traffic stops.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of three Texas residents who fit this exact profile. All three had lived in the U.S. for over a decade, had no criminal histories, and were detained for extensive periods without any access to a custody hearing.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately rejected the government’s framework. While the court acknowledged that Congress possesses broad authority to write immigration laws, it emphasized that the U.S. Constitution places firm boundaries on how those laws are executed.
Specifically, the court ruled that holding long-term interior residents indefinitely under a blanket “no bond” policy violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The core elements of the ruling include:
Because this is a federal appellate ruling, its jurisdiction is strictly defined. The decision is legally binding across the entire Fifth Circuit, which encompasses Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
The ruling applies specifically to:
If you or a loved one are an interior resident living in Texas, Louisiana, or Mississippi and have been detained by ICE, the Sosnava-Rodriguez ruling fundamentally alters your legal position. You have several rights under the new framework that can prevent unnecessary and often prolonged detention.
Under section 1226(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Congress has mandates that noncitizens who have committed certain crimes must be detained without bond. Because that law already firmly exists, the plaintiffs in Sosnava-Rodriguez were not challenging criminal detention. Instead, they challenged the July 2025 that targeted everyone else.
As of the Fifth Circuit’s decision, mandatory, indefinite detention is no longer permissible for long-term interior residents with no serious criminal history. You have a constitutional right to an individualized custody hearing before an immigration judge within 90 days of your initial arrest.
Historically, the burden fell entirely on the detained individual to prove they deserved bond. Sosnava-Rodriguez flips this dynamic.
That means, once your 90-day window closes, the government carries the burden of proof. To keep you detained, ICE must actively present clear evidence to a judge demonstrating that you are a specific danger to the community or an absolute flight risk.
If ICE cannot prove this, the judge must set a bond or order release conditions.
The court explicitly rejected the “border fiction” policy that treated decades-long interior residents the same as someone arriving at the border for the very first time. Your established roots in the United States, including family ties, length of residence, and community contributions, give you distinct due process protections that cannot be stripped away by standard enforcement policies.
Because ICE will not automatically audit detention centers and release individuals on day 91, you must proactively assert these rights through the immigration court system.
Keep in mind that while this ruling establishes a robust pathway to challenge your custody status, it only impacts your detention. That is, it does not pause or dismiss the underlying deportation or removal proceedings themselves.
Consulting with an experienced immigration attorney remains vital to navigating both the bond hearing and the main immigration case.
A critical tactic that families must watch out for is lateral transfer. ICE may attempt to transfer a detained individual to a facility in a neighboring state, such as New Mexico or Georgia, which fall under different federal circuits.
Whether for legitimate reasons such as overcrowded facilities or for more questionable reasons such as increasing numbers, ICE may utilize these jurisdictional transfers to circumvent favorable local rulings and avoid the strict 90-day bond hearing mandate.
If your loved one is suddenly moved to an out-of-state facility, it can severely complicate their case and disrupt the 90-day clock. This is why acting immediately within the first few weeks of detention is paramount; a local attorney must file a notice of appearance and request a custody redetermination before ICE attempts to move the detainee out of the region.
No. The decision only addresses whether or not ICE can keep you detained in a facility without bond. If you have a removal or deportation case, you will still have to go through immigration court.
That said, you will be able to fight your case from the safety of your home rather than from behind bars.
No. The Fifth Circuit made the decision explicitly preserving the distinction between individuals at the border and long-term interior residents. Those apprehended while crossing the border do not benefit from the 90-day ruling.
Not directly. The decision is only legally binding in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. However, immigration attorneys across the country may use this historic ruling as persuasive authority to fight for similar rights in other federal circuits.
The Sosnava-Rodriguez ruling has fundamentally altered the legal landscape for families across Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, but ICE will not automatically grant these critical 90-day hearings. If you have a loved one who has been detained, you must act decisively to assert their constitutional rights.
The experienced immigration defense team at John W. Lawit, LLC is ready to step in, audit the detention timeline, compile the necessary community and family evidence, and aggressively advocate before the immigration judge. Contact us today at (214) 609-2242 to secure the dedicated legal representation required to bring your loved one home.
