Blanche v. Blanche

Background

Petitioner Riky A.M.L., who held a valid work permit and social security card, was detained by federal immigration authorities in January 2026 and immediately moved out of Minnesota. His counsel filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (a court filing challenging the lawfulness of detention) in February 2026, asserting violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The government justified the detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). In February 2026, the court granted the petition and ordered Petitioner's immediate release along with return of all personal effects, including identification and immigration documents, without conditions such as location tracking devices.

Petitioner was released on time, but the government failed to return all of his property, including a nail gun, over $100 in cash, his social security card, and his work authorization card. After multiple court orders, hearings, and status reports, most property was eventually located or compensated for. Petitioner's Employment Authorization Document was eventually found, and he filed a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim for tools lost during his detention — tools required for his work as a roofer — and was ultimately compensated for those lost tools.

Procedural History of the Fee Motion

On May 18, 2026, Petitioner moved for costs and attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, documenting 66.50 hours of work and requesting $17,784.44. Respondents opposed the motion entirely, arguing EAJA fees are unavailable in immigration habeas proceedings, and alternatively sought a $10,000 reduction. Petitioner was granted leave to file a reply, in which he amended his total request upward to $27,743.60 by adding $9,959.16 for preparing the reply brief. Respondents then moved to strike the reply or for leave to file a sur-reply.

Legal Standard

Under the EAJA, a prevailing party in an action against the United States or one of its agencies is entitled to attorney's fees and expenses unless the government's position was "substantially justified" — meaning it had a reasonable basis in both law and fact — or special circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The government's "position" encompasses both litigation positions and the underlying agency conduct that led to the action. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(D). The court has substantial discretion in assessing the reasonableness of any fee award, and the party seeking fees must exclude excessive, redundant, or unnecessary hours. The EAJA sets a presumptive rate of $125 per hour, adjustable for cost of living.

Holdings

EAJA Availability in Immigration Habeas Cases

The court rejected the government's threshold argument that EAJA fees are categorically unavailable for habeas petitions challenging immigration detention. Relying on Eighth Circuit precedent in Bah v. Cangemi, 548 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. 2008), which assumed without challenge that immigration habeas petitions fall within the EAJA's "civil action" scope, the court held that EAJA fees are available in this context. The court acknowledged that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Montoya Palacios v. Liggins, No. 25-1223, to address this precise question, but stated it would follow existing circuit practice until instructed otherwise.

Fees for Preparation of the Habeas Petition — Awarded

The government argued its position was substantially justified because it relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) for the detention, and the Eighth Circuit later upheld that position in Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2026). The court agreed that the government's statutory detention argument was substantially justified. However, the court found that the government failed to address Petitioner's Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment due process arguments at all, and that other petitioners in this district had prevailed on similar arguments — particularly regarding detention without a valid warrant. Because the government's position was not substantially justified "in all aspects of the law," the court awarded fees for preparing the petition. The court also found the time spent was reasonable, noting that the petition was filed during "Operation Metro Surge," in which lawyers outside immigration law handled hundreds of emergency detention cases.

Fees for Work Related to Unreturned Property — Awarded

The court awarded fees for all time counsel spent seeking return of Petitioner's personal property and pursuing the FTCA claim, because the underlying government agency conduct — failing to return property as the court's order required, and offering no explanation for the failure — had no reasonable basis in fact. The court found this conduct was not substantially justified under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(D).

Fees for Preparing the Reply Brief — Denied

The court declined to award fees for the time Petitioner's counsel spent preparing the optional reply brief in support of the fee motion. The court found it unreasonable to require the government to reimburse fees for a brief that was not required and for which counsel sought and received special leave to file.

Fee Calculation

The court approved an hourly rate of $237.36, finding it reasonably reflects inflation since the EAJA's $125/hour cap was set in 1996 and is consistent with cost-of-living adjustments commonly awarded in this district. The court awarded $17,784.44 — reflecting 66.50 hours documented in the initial attorney declaration, plus $5 in costs — and denied fees for the additional hours claimed in the reply brief.

Disposition of Respondents' Motion to Strike

Respondents' motion to strike Petitioner's reply (Docket No. 51) was denied as moot.