Higginson urges constitutional avoidance and a limit on detention power
Stephen A. HigginsonFifth Circuit judge, in a separate dissent
Higginson argues that the court should revisit its statutory interpretation and avoid unnecessary constitutional conflicts. He distinguishes detention of people already inside the country from admission at its threshold and argues that immigration power remains subject to constitutional limits.
“The Constitution does not drop away from executive detention simply because that detention relates to immigration.”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Fifth Circuit rejects bond hearings for three immigration detainees; dissenters invoke due process
The Fifth Circuit rejected three immigration detainees' constitutional claims to individualized bond hearings during removal proceedings. The October 23 en banc ruling reverses habeas relief, with Judge Priscilla Richman concurring in the judgment. Dissenters argue that detention requires more constitutional protection.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
The court rejects these petitioners' constitutional bond-hearing claims. The majority expressly recognizes that the Fifth Amendment applies to them.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
His dissent joins Southwick's due-process analysis and separately emphasizes constitutional avoidance.
After the quotation
He discusses the importance of physical location and distinguishes custody from the decision to remove someone.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The author opposes denying the individual detention hearing at issue.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseEtelson challenges the textual basis for the detention policy
“the administration's argument asks the Court to stretch federal law beyond its reasonable limits.”Read statement
Mehta argues that detention requires a separate liberty analysis
“A bond hearing does not confer lawful status, prevent removal, or second-guess Congress's admissibility rules.”Read statement
Castro calls the ruling unconstitutional
“violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects everyone.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Higginson urges constitutional avoidance and a limit on detention power
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/7399-higginson-argues-that-the-court-should-revisit-its
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Higginson urges constitutional avoidance and a limit on detention power". First published: 2026-10-30. Last updated: 2026-10-30. https://disputeindex.com/events/7399-higginson-argues-that-the-court-should-revisit-its