Brake on ICE: Court Bans Holding Migrants Beyond 90 Days

The U.S. justice system imposed a significant brake on the detention mechanisms of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. A federal appeals court determined that persons in immigration custody cannot remain in prison indefinitely. The judicial ruling establishes that authorities must respect basic constitutional guarantees of defendants. This decision directly alters detention protocols applied in strategic zones along the country’s southern border.

The historic ruling comes from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, officially headquartered in New Orleans. The judges ruled that it is prohibited to keep an immigrant in custody for a period longer than 90 days without a judicial review. The ruling has direct legal impact in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It is important to note that Texas and Louisiana operate the nation’s largest immigration detention centers. Foreign nationals arrested in practically any state in the country are sent to these prisons.

The judicial decision weakens a central part of the border control guidelines pushed by President Donald Trump’s administration. Under the current White House rules, undocumented immigrants in deportation proceedings were systematically denied access to bail hearings. This practice allowed the federal agency to retain persons in prison facilities for extended periods without supervision from a judge.

What are the constitutional guarantees that underpin this judicial ruling against ICE?

The majority opinion of the court was written by Judge Leslie H. Southwick, who received her appointment during George W. Bush’s administration. The judge stipulated that the ruling’s central requirement is the mandatory holding of a hearing within the first 90 days of custody. At this hearing, federal government attorneys must present individualized justification if they intend to prolong detention without granting the benefit of bail.

Judge Southwick recalled that the Supreme Court of Justice determined in 2001 that the due process clause protects all inhabitants. The judge emphasized that the nation’s founding charter makes no exceptions when guaranteeing the civil rights of those residing within the country’s borders. This irrevocably includes the fundamental right to be heard before courts when someone’s personal liberty is taken away.

The ruling did not receive unanimous approval from the appeals court members. The dissenting vote was cast by Judge Cory Wilson, who received his appointment under Donald Trump’s first presidential term.

State Under Jurisdiction	Impact on Detention Center System	Direct Consequence of Judicial Ruling
Texas	Houses the largest ICE prison complexes in the country.	Obligation to hold bail hearings within a 90-day period.
Louisiana	Consistently receives immigrants transferred from other states.	Strict prohibition on maintaining indefinite custody periods.
Mississippi	Operates regional processing and detention facilities.	Immediate application of due process to those detained on immigration charges.

How did the lawsuit that defeated the mandatory detention policy originate?

The legal controversy reached federal courts following routine arrests of Ignacio Sosnava Rodríguez, Miguel Ángel Gómez Alvarado, and Alejandro Villegas Ángel. These three individuals were intercepted in Texas by state police officers during routine traffic stops between November 2025 and February 2026. Despite involving minor infractions