Sunee T. v. Mullin
Sunee T. v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:26-cv-01638
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Sunee T. v. Mullin, Judge Provinzino granted Sunee T.’s motion for $2,550 in attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Sunee T. received an award of $2,550 in attorney’s fees and costs, payable by the Government to his counsel. The order also determined that the Government’s conduct and litigation position were not substantially justified for purposes of the fee request.
What happened
In Sunee T. v. Mullin, Sunee T. had challenged his detention after the Government revoked his order of supervision. The court previously granted his petition and ordered his release.
Sunee T. then requested $2,550 in attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Government did not dispute that he was eligible for an award or challenge the amount, but argued that its conduct and legal positions were substantially justified.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino rejected that argument and granted the motion. The court ordered the Government to pay $2,550 to Sunee T.’s counsel within the time stated in the order.
The detailed version
- Sunee T. v. Mullin · No. 0:26-cv-01638
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Apr. 30, 2026
Background
Sunee T. filed a petition challenging the Government’s revocation of his order of supervision and his resulting detention for purposes of executing a final removal order. The court granted that petition on March 11, 2026, and ordered the Government to release him from custody.
Sunee T. then moved for $2,550 in attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal statute that generally allows a prevailing party in a civil action against the United States to recover fees unless the Government’s position was substantially justified or special circumstances would make an award unjust.
Parties’ Positions
The Government did not dispute that Sunee T. was the prevailing party, that he was eligible to receive an award, or that the requested amount was correct. It argued instead that its position was substantially justified for two reasons.
First, the Government maintained that it could detain Sunee T. because he had not been detained for more than 120 days in total. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the Government also needed to follow its own procedures before rearresting and detaining him and that it had failed to do so.
Second, the Government argued that the proper remedy for any procedural failure was to redo the process rather than grant habeas relief. The court noted that the Government relied on two nonbinding decisions from the Northern District of Texas, but concluded that those decisions did not make the Government’s position reasonable because this court and judges in the District of Minnesota had repeatedly indicated that the position was incorrect and unjustified.
Ruling
Judge Laura M. Provinzino found that the Government had not met its burden to show that its conduct and litigation position were substantially justified. The court therefore granted Sunee T.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs.
The order requires the Government to pay $2,550 to Sunee T.’s counsel within 30 days after the order or within 30 days after appropriations to the Department of Homeland Security are restored, whichever occurs later. Any payment check must be delivered to Sunee T.’s counsel at the address stated in the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.