Fifth Circuit Rules Immigrants Can Be Detained Indefinitely Without Bond Hearings

On February 6, 2026, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi that fundamentally reinterpreted federal immigration detention law. The case involved two immigrants—Victor Buenrostro-Mendez and Jose Padron Covarrubias—who were detained and charged as 'applicants for admission' under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which mandates detention with no bond-hearing provision.

JEJudge Edith H. Jones wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Duncan, holding that any noncitizen present in the U.S. without having been admitted or paroled qualifies as an 'applicant for admission' subject to mandatory detention. This interpretation applies regardless of whether the person entered 20 years ago or entered yesterday—the statute has no time limit under the majority's reading.

The majority's interpretation inverted three decades of established practice. From the 1990s until 2024, immigration courts had interpreted § 1225(b)(2)(A) as applying primarily to people at ports of entry seeking admission. The statute had never been read to apply to long-term residents already living and working in the country.

JDJudge Dana Douglas filed a sharp dissent, warning that the ruling means 'the border is now everywhere.' Under the majority's logic, ICE agents can treat anyone in 🤠Texas, 🎺Louisiana, or 🎸Mississippi as an 'unadmitted alien' and detain them without bond regardless of where they were actually apprehended or how long they've been in the country.

The human impact is substantial and immediate. Legal advocates estimate that 15,000+ immigrants in the Fifth Circuit region could face mandatory detention under this new interpretation. The ruling blocks habeas corpus rights—the constitutional guarantee of a judicial hearing to challenge detention—for an entire class of people.

The decision stands in stark isolation from the broader federal judiciary. According to analysis of judicial records, over 350 federal judges in more than 2,400 cases have ruled against the government's interpretation, finding it contradicts the statute's plain language and three decades of consistent practice. Only 27 judges in 130 cases had previously backed the government's position.

The Fifth Circuit ruled on the government's arguments just three days after oral argument, raising questions about the speed of the decision and whether the panel gave full consideration to the constitutional and statutory implications.