Today we filed an amicus brief with the Texas Civil Rights Project on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), the American Business Immigration Coalition (ABIC), and the Texas United Auto Community Alliance (TUACA) in Sosnava-Rodriguez v. Ortega (Sosnava). Our clients are asking the Court to weigh the government’s interests in mandatory detention against the very real human and economic costs of taking people out of their homes, their jobs, and their communities under a mandatory detention policy. What may appear from a distance to be an individual immigration enforcement decision can have consequences that ripple outward to families, employers, coworkers, businesses, consumers, and the communities and industries that depend on them.  

Sosnava is a lawsuit currently in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding whether long-term resident noncitizens can be subjected to mandatory, indefinite immigration detention without a bond hearing. The consolidated case involves three Texas fathers of U.S. citizen children who entered the country without inspection more than a decade ago and have no criminal histories. At stake is whether certain noncitizens can be detained for months and years without any individualized assessment of flight risk or danger to the community.  

Our clients decided to file an amicus brief because they recognize that immigration enforcement and mandatory detention is harming Texas’ economy and overall wellbeing.  

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) cites the ongoing construction-worker shortage, and immigration enforcement and mandatory detention are further shrinking the pool of skilled workers, making housing scarcer and more expensive. Enforcement practices have driven up costs and led to higher home prices. Removing workers and placing them in mandatory detention directly undermines housing production and drives up costs for homebuilders and consumers.  

The American Business Immigration Coalition (ABIC) indicates that these enforcement practices are currently harming infrastructure and construction in Texas. In July 2026, ABIC and the South Texas Builders Association reported that ICE activity has shrunk construction crews, delayed projects, and raised costs, as workers fearful of enforcement stay home and others are removed from jobsites when subject to mandatory detention. Mandatory detention compounds these disruptions by keeping workers out of their jobs and communities. 

The Texas United Auto Community Alliance (TUACA)’s members work directly with Texas families on vehicle title, registration, and related services, and the automotive sector depends upon a stable workforce and a healthy consumer base. Many of the families and workers they serve are immigrants who work, support their families, purchase goods and services, and contribute to the local economy. When workers are subject to mandatory detention, they are removed from their jobs and communities, disrupting family finances, reducing consumer activity, and depriving businesses of workers and customers. These disruptions ripple through the automotive economy and the Texas communities that depend on it. 

The three amici ask the court to consider the current human and economic costs of detention without individualized review, including the consequences for employers and Texas consumers. Immigration enforcement and mandatory detention are disrupting the critical, everyday infrastructure that allows people to participate in our economy.  

Individual detention is disrupting jobsites which further contributes to the housing shortage and higher consumer costs. The consequences do not end there. The overall higher consumer costs of housing and products are putting a broader strain on economic mobility and small businesses. All of which are directly supported by the third Mathews factor, which calls for “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail”. The constitution requires weighing what mandatory detention costs the economy, and any of our clients can attest to its direct consequences.  

The negative consequences of mandatory detention of workers ripple outwards to employers, housing markets, and the everyday economic wellbeing of a community. Our clients are not asking the Court to change immigration policy. They ask the Court to uphold the constitutional process that provides the stability and predictability on which our economy depends. When due process is diminished, so too is the stability of the markets, businesses, and communities that make our economy work.