Case: Padron Covarrubias v. Vergara
5:25-cv-00112 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Filed Date: July 8, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This is one of several lawsuits in which a federal court of appeals has addressed whether the mandatory detention (without bond) provision in 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens present in the United States.
Petitioner, a Mexican citizen who had been living in the U.S. for twenty-four years, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on July 8, 2025, seeking discretionary release on bond during removal proceedings. Petitioner has been living in the U.S. since 2001 and has significant family ties in the U.S. as well as U.S. citizen children. In May, 2025, ICE officials apprehended petitioner while executing a search warrant at a construction site in Florida. Petitioner filed this petition after being detained for several months, and argued that the the immigration judge should have found that he was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (INA § 236(a)) because he was already present in the U.S. when he was detained, making him eligible to be released on bond, and that the judge should have considered whether he was a flight risk or a danger to the community when determining his eligibility for release. Instead, the immigration judge found that he was properly detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which allows detention without a bond hearing. Petitioner contended that these failures violated his 5th Amendment Due Process rights. Petitioner requested declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy his unlawful detention without a bond hearing.
On August 25, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the petitioner’s complaint, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction over petitioner’s claims and that he had not exhausted his remedies.
The petitioner filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction on September 26, 2025, which requested largely the same relief that he requested in his original petition.
On October 3, 2026, the district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court first found that none of the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) deprived the court of jurisdiction to consider whether the petitioner’s continued detention was unconstitutional. Next, the court found that there was no statutory requirement that the petitioner exhaust his remedies before the court hears his claims, and further noted that numerous courts have found that exhaustion would be futile or should be excused because the average wait time to be heard in similar cases is more than six months. Finally, the court found that the petitioner sufficiently stated a claim upon which relief may be granted.
After a motions hearing on October 8, 2025, the court granted petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court found that Section 1226, not Section 1225, applied to petitioner’s detention. The court noted that “as almost every district court, including another court in the Southern District of Texas, has concluded, “the statutory text, the statute’s history, Congressional intent, and § 1226(a)’s application for the past three decades” support application of Section 1226.” The court ordered that the defendants release the petitioner unless he was provided with a bond hearing by October 17, 2025. The court additionally denied petitioner’s motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction as moot.
On October 23, 2025, the district court issued a final judgment and terminated the case. Because the petitioner was afforded a bond hearing pursuant to the court’s October 8 order and was released after paying his bond, there were no longer live claims before the court.
On October 24, 2025, the defendants appealed the court’s decision to grant the habeas petition and the court’s final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
On November 10, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to consolidate this appeal with another appeal of a similar habeas corpus proceeding that raised the same issues, Buenrostro Mendez v. Bondi, and filed a motion to expedite the appeal.
The court denied the motion to expedite the appeal, but granted the motion to consolidate the two cases for briefing and oral argument purposes on November 19, 2025.
The defendants challenged the court’s decision not to expedite the appeal on December 3, 2025, through a motion for reconsideration. The court denied the motion on December 15, 2025.
On December 31, 2025, the defendants filed another motion to expedite the appeal. The appellate court granted the defendants’ motion on January 9, 2026, and issued an expedited briefing schedule.
On February 3, 2026, the appellate court heard oral arguments on the parties’ positions.
Following oral arguments, on February 6, 2026, the appellate court reversed the district court’s finding and concluded that 8 U.S.C. § 1225, the mandatory detention statute, applies to all “unadmitted aliens,” including undocumented individuals who were already present in the U.S. at the time of their detention. The court examined the interplay between 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which requires detention for "applicants for admission," and § 1226, which allows for discretionary release on bond. While the petitioners argued that long-term residents are not "seeking admission" and thus deserve bond eligibility, the court's majority concluded that all unadmitted aliens fall under the mandatory detention framework. Consequently, the court reversed lower court rulings that had granted bond hearings, effectively narrowing the legal avenues for release during removal proceedings. The dissenting opinion sharply criticized this move, arguing that it ignored decades of legal precedent and erroneously applied border-entry rules to the interior of the country. The court ultimately reversed the orders of the two district courts and remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s decision. 2026 WL 323330
On May 7, 2026, the parties jointly requested a stay of the case in the district court pending the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Sosnava-Rodriquez v. Blanche, No. 26-50183. The court granted the request and stayed the case pending the Fifth Circuit’s decision.
On July 2, 2026, the Fifth Circuit entered a panel decision in Sosnava-Rodriquez v. Blanche that guaranteed immigrants a bond hearing within 90 days. The Fifth Circuit granted its own motion for rehearing en banc in that case, and consequently the July 2, 2026, opinion was vacated. Therefore, on July 14, 2026, the district court maintained the stay of the action pending the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision.
As of August 19, 2026, this case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Madeline Dollard (8/20/2026)
Sofia Yoder (2/22/2026)
Related Cases
Buenrostro Mendez v. Bondi, Southern District of Texas (2025)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70731053/parties/padron-covarrubias-v-vergara/
Kazen, John A. (Texas)
Ramirez, Hector Carlos (Texas)
Ahmed, Nora (Texas)
O'Connor, Stephen Joseph (Texas)
Perry, Charles Andrew (Texas)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70731053/padron-covarrubias-v-vergara/
Last updated Sept. 17, 2026, 3:34 a.m.
Docket for: Padron Covarrubias v. Vergara
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 8, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A Mexican citizen that has lived in the United States for over 24 years.
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Juan S. Diaz
Kristi Noem
MIGUEL VERGARA
Pamela Bondi
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Texas 5:25-cv-00112
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 25-40701
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Case Summary of Padron Covarrubias v. Vergara, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47802/ (last updated 2/22/2026).