Full Fifth Circuit Rejects Bond-Hearing Right for ICE Detainees; Ninth Circuit Upholds Block on LA Guard Takeover; Big Bend Wall at SCOTUS: Oct 26

Better Call Claude Briefing — Oct 26, 2026

The full Fifth Circuit ruled 10-7 that immigrants held under the Trump administration's mandatory-detention policy have no constitutional right to a bond hearing, a major win for the policy in the circuit that holds the most detainees. The Ninth Circuit upheld the order that blocked the 2025 federalization of the California National Guard in Los Angeles. The Supreme Court is weighing an emergency request to restart border-wall construction in the Big Bend region, with a response due this Thursday. And in legal tech, Pennsylvania's courts are considering a statewide rule making every filer certify they checked any AI-drafted text. General news roundup only — not legal advice.

Full Fifth Circuit says detained immigrants have no constitutional right to bond hearings

On Friday, October 23, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled 10-7 that the Fifth Amendment's due process clause does not require the government to give immigrants detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) an individualized hearing on whether they are dangerous or a flight risk. The consolidated cases, led by Villegas Angel v. Mullin (No. 26-50219), involved three men from Mexico and Honduras who had lived in the U.S. for many years, including one for more than 22 years, before ICE detained them. District judges in Texas had granted habeas relief and ordered bond hearings, and a divided panel in July affirmed and set a rule that hearings were required within 90 days of detention. The full court reheard the case on its own motion and reversed. Writing for the majority, Judge Cory Wilson said detainees who want to be free of physical restraint "can do so at any moment by agreeing to leave the country," and held that the length of detention raised no constitutional problem. Judge Priscilla Richman concurred only in the judgment. Politico notes the mandatory-detention policy has been rejected by more than 460 district judges and nine of the 11 circuits to consider it, and the Supreme Court has agreed to decide this term whether the immigration statute itself requires bond hearings. Why it matters: for people detained in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, which hold the largest numbers of immigration detainees, this closes off a key constitutional route to release while the Supreme Court decides the statutory question.

Sources: Politico, Reuters via StreetInsider, Bloomberg Law, En banc opinion (via Courthouse News)

Ninth Circuit upholds the block on Trump's 2025 National Guard takeover in Los Angeles

Also on October 23, a Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the preliminary injunction in Newsom v. Trump (No. 25-3727) against President Trump's June 2025 order federalizing 4,000 California National Guard members under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 after protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles. In the majority opinion, Judge Jennifer Sung, joined by Judge Eric Miller, held that the federalization "exceeded the President's statutory authority and encroached on Congress's calling forth power," relying heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Illinois. The court rejected the argument that the protests amounted to a "rebellion," noting the trial court found "no evidence of organized, as apart from sporadic or impromptu, violence." The administration had asked the court to dismiss its own appeal after the troops were withdrawn in December, but the panel refused, saying the case is not moot because the President has said the Guard will "come back," and that dismissing would let a party steer how precedent forms. Judge Mark Bennett dissented in part, arguing the court should have let the appeal go rather than decide such large questions at this early stage. Why it matters: there's no immediate practical effect, but the ruling sets binding Ninth Circuit precedent limiting when a president can take control of a state's Guard to respond to protests.

Sources: Bloomberg Law, Order on motion to dismiss (Justia)

Supreme Court weighs Trump request to restart Big Bend border-wall construction

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court in Mullin v. Friends of the Ruidosa Church (No. 26A560) to let it resume building the border wall in the Big Bend region of southwest Texas, including areas in Big Bend National Park. On October 2, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso temporarily barred construction until the government complies with environmental and other laws, after an environmental group, a local landowner, and a group formed to preserve a church challenged three 2026 waivers issued by Homeland Security Secretaries Kristi Noem and Markwayne Mullin. In an October 14 opinion, Cardone found the challengers likely to win under the major questions doctrine, reasoning that Congress gave the waiver power to deter crossings "in areas of high illegal entry," while the evidence showed Big Bend has the lowest illegal-entry rate on the entire southern border. Solicitor General D. John Sauer called the order "baseless" and "unprecedented," arguing the 1996 immigration law only allows constitutional challenges to waivers, and that a claim of exceeding statutory authority isn't one. He asked the justices to pause the order and summarily reverse it. SCOTUSblog reports responses are due by 4 p.m. EDT on Thursday, October 29, and the Court's November argument sitting opens Monday, November 2. Why it matters: the case tests whether courts can use the major questions doctrine to review border-wall waivers that Congress largely shielded from judicial review.

Sources: SCOTUSblog: application, SCOTUSblog: Oct. 26 roundup, AP News

Legal tech: Pennsylvania weighs an AI certification on every court filing

A Pennsylvania Supreme Court advisory committee on artificial intelligence published a proposed statewide notice and certification on Saturday, October 24, and is taking public comments until November 24. It would apply to lawyers, self-represented litigants, and parties in every Pennsylvania court, from the Supreme Court down to the magisterial district courts. Filers would have to confirm that every cited authority exists, every quotation appears in the named source, every summary of a legal principle is supported by the source, and every stated fact has a basis in the record, and they'd certify they reviewed any AI-drafted language. "Those who use GenAI remain fully responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the documents they file with a court," the draft says. It wouldn't require naming the tool or marking AI passages, and possible sanctions include a reprimand, disregarding the filing, dismissal, or fees. Nothing is in force yet; the committee is still deciding whether to recommend it. On the firm side, Global Legal Post reported October 25 that the newly merged Hogan Lovells Cadwalader created an AI board and signed agreements with both Harvey and Legora, alongside its in-house Eltemate tools. Why it matters: for self-represented people as much as lawyers, the message is the same: if you use AI to help write a court filing, you are responsible for checking every citation and quote.

Sources: Legal Tech Circle, Global Legal Post, Hogan Lovells Cadwalader press release

Not legal advice

This Briefing is a general news summary from Better Call Claude (bettercallclaude.org) and is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. For help with your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.