Illegal immigrants never admitted to the US have no constitutional right to a bond hearing, Fifth Circuit rules

Detained illegal immigrants who were never formally admitted into the United States are not constitutionally entitled to bond hearings while awaiting deportation, the full panel of the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday. The ruling is being seen as a major victory for the Trump administration.

The court answered the constitutional question in Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez v. Sylvester M. Ortega, finding that three immigrant men detained under the mandatory-detention statute are not entitled to bond hearings under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court held that their years or even decades of residence in the United States, along with their ties to the country and their communities, do not create a constitutional right to a bond hearing.

The court wrote: 'The Constitution does not entitle them to a bond hearing.'

The ruling comes as the US Supreme Court prepares to hear Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha this term, a closely related fight over whether the federal mandatory-detention statute applies at all to longtime immigrants arrested inside the country. The justices could therefore either undercut Friday's ruling or strengthen the government's hand.

At the centre of the dispute is a 9-2 circuit split over which federal detention law applies to immigrants who entered the country illegally, were never formally admitted and were later arrested by immigration authorities after living in the US for years — sometimes decades after crossing the border.

The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have held that those immigrants remain 'applicants for admission' under Section 1225 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, subjecting them to mandatory detention without an ordinary bond hearing while their removal proceedings play out. Nine other federal appeals courts have ruled that Section 1226 applies instead, which provides a path for them to seek release on bond.

The Supreme Court will essentially decide whether immigrants who entered illegally and have lived in the US for years can be subjected to the same mandatory-detention provision that applies to certain immigrants seeking admission into the country.

If the Supreme Court sides with the Second Circuit, Barbosa da Cunha — a Brazilian national who entered the country illegally roughly two decades ago and was detained in 2025 — would have a path to seek release on bond. Such a ruling would likely apply to the three longtime immigrants at the centre of Rodriguez as well, substantially undercutting the significance of Friday's ruling.

Judge Leslie Southwick pointed directly to the looming Supreme Court fight in her dissent. She wrote that should the Supreme Court eventually determine that the court was wrong as to the statute, the constitutional issue addressed here will have far less significance — though it certainly has significance at the moment.

But conservative legal experts say Rodriguez could also strengthen the administration's hand in Rhoney by undercutting one argument against the government's interpretation of Section 1225: that applying the mandatory-detention provision to longtime residents would raise serious constitutional concerns.

Michael Morley, a constitutional law professor at Florida State University, said Friday's ruling could influence how the justices approach that question, because courts often consider whether a particular reading of federal law would create constitutional problems. In his words, the Fifth Circuit's en banc ruling in Rodriguez holds that such detention would not violate the US Constitution's Due Process Clause; if the Court agrees with that analysis, it may be more likely to conclude that federal law permits it as well.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, argued that the decision could bolster the administration as the justices prepare to resolve the circuit split. He noted that the Fifth Circuit has consistently held that the applicable immigration statute does not require bond hearings for immigrants who were never admitted to the United States, and said he would be surprised if a majority of the Supreme Court disagrees when it ultimately decides Rhoney.

The Supreme Court agreed earlier this month to hear Rhoney but has not yet scheduled oral arguments in the case. Notably, the justices begin hearing oral arguments on Monday in a range of cases this term involving gun rights, religious freedom, immigration detention and the limits of government power.