“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
The Trump administration is holding thousands of longtime resident immigrants in detention without bond. Several of them sued and argued that this violates their constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause. The July 2026 case is Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega.
What happened in this case?
A provision of immigration law (Section 1225) denies bond hearings to “aliens seeking admission” to the country unless they are entitled beyond a doubt to be admitted. This law has always been applied to people entering the country. But the Trump administration claims that even longtime residents who are undocumented are “aliens seeking admission” and therefore ineligible for a bond hearing. This redefinition has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of judges to consider it. But last February, the Fifth Circuit adopted that reading of the statute due to the deciding vote of Trump judge Kyle Duncan.
In the current case, three longtime residents argue that their indefinite detention violates the Due Process Clause. Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez, Alejandro Villegas Angel, and Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado each entered the country without documentation over a decade ago and has lived here ever since. They have no criminal history. Their children are American citizens. Each had a routine traffic stop that turned into detention with no chance for release on bond. And in each case, a federal district judge ruled that the indefinite detention violated their Due Process rights.
How did the Fifth Circuit rule?
A three-judge panel majority agreed with the lower courts. Leslie Southwick (a George W. Bush judge) wrote that the Constitution guarantees due process to all within its borders:
It is part of the historic majesty of this long-ago founding charter that it makes no exceptions in providing basic rights to those within our boundaries, including a right to be heard when personal liberty is taken.
Based on an analysis of Supreme Court precedents, he concluded that the federal government must provide a bond hearing within 90 days of detaining an immigrant under the statute at issue. The bond hearing would determine if continued detention was necessary because they are dangerous or a flight risk.
Obama judge James Graves would have required the hearing be within 30 days of detention, rather than 90. He cited the “appalling lack of humanity shown to our fellow human beings” by the Trump administration.
What did Trump Judge Wilson say in dissent and why is it harmful?
Trump Judge Wilson wrote in dissent that undocumented immigrants have fewer due process rights than U.S. citizens. He argued that Congress enjoys “broad power over naturalization and immigration” and can make rules “that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.” In his view, the Due Process Clause does not require Congress to grant bond hearings to longtime resident immigrants who have never been lawfully admitted to the country but who are instead (according to the Trump administration) “seeking admission” to the country.
His position would increase the harm being experienced by a community that is already living in terror, especially those in the Fifth Circuit states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The case shows the importance of fair-minded judges to protecting the rights and freedom of all people.