Recent Detentions of Immigrants Raise Constitutional Questions
Between November 2025 and February 2026, three Latino immigrants in Taylor, Texas, were stopped by police who subsequently notified U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. The immigrants were detained and faced deportation proceedings without the opportunity for a bail hearing.
These individuals, Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez, Miguel Ángel Gómez Alvarado, and Alejandro Villegas Ángel, had crossed the Texas-Mexico border at different times and had lived in the United States as undocumented immigrants for 22, 15, and 14 years, respectively. During their time here, they established families and maintained clean criminal records until their detention.
All three men were ultimately released from ICE custody after a federal judge ruled that their detention without a bail hearing infringed upon their due process rights. The Trump administration subsequently appealed this ruling, arguing that federal immigration law mandates the detention of illegal immigrants until their deportation is finalized.
The case is now being reviewed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is set to answer a significant constitutional question: Do undocumented immigrants possess the same rights to challenge their detention as U.S. citizens and legal residents?
Gracie Willis, an attorney with the National Immigration Project representing the three men, emphasized the importance of this case, stating it revolves around fundamental constitutional rights, specifically the right to a fair hearing regarding one’s freedom.
Historically, the federal government and the courts have recognized that undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process rights. However, the Trump administration’s recent claims that undocumented immigrants do not have the same ability to contest their detention have resulted in a dramatic surge in deportations. Over 73,000 immigrants were detained compared to an average of 28,000 during the Biden administration.
This unprecedented increase in detentions has led to a significant rise in legal challenges. In the first 13 months of the Trump administration, immigrants filed approximately 47,000 habeas corpus petitions, surpassing filings in the previous three administrations combined. Notably, about one in five cases originated in federal court in Texas.
Understanding Immigrants’ Due Process Rights
According to the U.S. Constitution, anyone suspected of a crime has the right to know the reasons for their arrest, as well as the right to appear before a judge to defend themselves. For the past three decades, undocumented immigrants have enjoyed these rights, even when facing civil cases in immigration court. However, they lack the same right to legal representation that U.S. citizens have in criminal judicial proceedings.
Willis likened immigration court to traffic court but warned that the consequences can be much more severe, with potential deportation on the line. Despite the limitations, undocumented immigrants can still challenge the federal government’s case against them in court while seeking release on bail.
In a statement made in 1993, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia affirmed that the Fifth Amendment guarantees due process rights to non-citizens facing deportation.
Recent Policy Changes and Their Legal Implications
Federal immigration law allows for the rapid deportation of recent undocumented immigrants without a bail hearing. However, there are protections in place for individuals who have lived in the U.S. for prolonged periods, granting them the ability to contest their detention.
In July 2025, the Trump administration announced a controversial policy allowing for the detention of all individuals arrested by ICE, irrespective of their length of stay in the country. This policy eliminated their right to appear before an immigration judge to challenge their detention or request bail. This change also affected asylum seekers, who are typically allowed entry into the U.S. despite lacking permanent legal status.
Asylum applications have surged in tandem with an increase in border crossings, a trend that began during Trump’s first term and peaked during the Biden administration, only to decline again as the Trump administration intensified immigration enforcement.
Judicial Responses to Policy Changes
The policy shift has led to thousands of legal challenges in federal courts. A Politico analysis revealed that, since the announcement in July, more than 400 federal judges from both major political parties have ruled in over 5,000 cases in support of immigrants’ due process rights. Only a fraction of judges—41 in 250 cases—have sided with the Trump administration’s interpretation of immigration law.
Conflicting rulings from various courts have emerged, with three federal appeals courts rejecting the administration’s stance, two courts affirming it, and one remaining deadlocked. In February, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision favoring the administration’s mandatory detention policy. Conversely, the 8th Circuit upheld the administration’s interpretation, while the 2nd Circuit raised constitutional concerns over the new directive.
Judge Joseph Bianco of the 2nd Circuit expressed alarm over the potential ramifications of the policy, warning that it could destabilize the immigration detention system, separate families, and strain an already overwhelmed infrastructure.
Future Developments in the Legal Landscape
The legal battle surrounding this issue is far from settled, with ongoing challenges from immigrants targeted by the Trump administration’s stringent policies. Immigration attorneys anticipate that the case may ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court, given the divided opinions among federal appeals courts.
Meanwhile, the Fifth Circuit is currently deliberating whether Rodriguez, Gomez, and Villegas possessed the right to challenge their detention. Willis reiterated the necessity for immigrants to safeguard their rights amidst these legal changes, expressing surprise at the government’s argument that parties involved in such civil lawsuits have no due process rights.
Disclosure: Politico has supported The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit news organization that relies on contributions from various sources. Financial backers do not influence the Tribune’s journalism.
