Immigrants detained in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas now have fewer ways to seek release while their cases are pending after a recent appellate court decision. In early February, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a split decision that the Trump administration has the authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to hold any immigrant who entered the country without inspection in detention without bond, regardless of how long they’ve been in the country.
What changed
The case that the 5th Circuit ruled on, Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, involved two Mexican nationals who had been living in Texas for years. In an appeals case, the BIA concluded that an immigration judge did not have the authority to hold a bond hearing for Venezuelan citizen Jonathan Javier Yajure Hurtado. The federal board said Yajure Hurtado was subject to mandatory detention — removing bond as an option — under the new interpretation of the Immigration Nationality Act.
The ruling creates a binding standard across the 5th Circuit that certain immigrants—specifically those who entered without inspection—can be held in mandatory detention without any bond hearing, irrespective of their length of residence in the United States or family ties.
Why it matters
Before, a bond hearing process could be one pathway an attorney could use in Louisiana to get qualified people released from immigration detention. Even if someone eligible for bond was denied a hearing, they could file a habeas petition to request release from detention. This 5th Circuit decision substantially narrows that second pathway for many detainees.
The population that this actually impacts are folks that have probably been living here for more than five to 10 years, and so they have probably built lives and have family and have deep community connections. Practitioners in the 5th Circuit must now reassess release strategies for clients who entered without inspection and assume mandatory detention applies, even if the client has strong equitable factors favoring release.
Filing a habeas petition after prolonged detention and challenging the constitutionality of warrantless arrests are other avenues to release those detained while their immigration cases are underway, if those circumstances apply. These narrow avenues remain available, but the default bond hearing pathway is effectively closed for the covered population.
Way forward
-
Assess entry method immediately: Determine whether your client entered without inspection. If yes, assume mandatory detention applies under this ruling and adjust release strategy accordingly.
-
Explore remaining habeas options: Evaluate whether prolonged detention (generally beyond six months) or unconstitutional warrantless arrest grounds apply to your client. These may still support a habeas petition under the new framework.
-
Document constitutional claims early: If you identify potential constitutional violations in your client’s arrest or conditions of detention, preserve these claims and consider filing habeas petitions that challenge the constitutionality of detention itself, not just bond eligibility.
-
Monitor circuit splits: This is a split decision within the 5th Circuit and conflicts with majority law in other circuits. Monitor appeals and stay alert to potential en banc reconsideration or Supreme Court developments.
Disclaimer
Fola is a software platform, not a law firm, and this article is not legal advice. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific. Always consult a licensed immigration attorney regarding your specific situation. Verify all information against the primary source linked above and applicable case law. Federal court decisions and immigration policy can change without notice; practitioners should regularly review updated guidance and precedent.