Siad v. Mullin
Mahad S. v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; Peter Berg, Director, St. Paul Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; Samuel J. Olson, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, Chicago Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; and James Tadman, Sheriff of Polk County, Minnesota, custodian of detainees of the Northwest Regional Corrections Center
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:26-cv-00476
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Mahad S. v. Mullin, Judge Bryan granted in part Mahad S.'s fee request under the Equal Access to Justice Act, awarding $5,772.53 after the government failed to justify its due-process violation.
Immigration detainees — particularly noncitizens who were previously released under the § 1226 regime and later re-detained without formal revocation of that release — and their attorneys who may seek fee awards under the EAJA when the government fails to justify its litigation positions.
What happened
In Mahad S. v. Markwayne Mullin, a Somali asylum-seeker named Mahad S. was arrested and detained in December 2025 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as part of an operation called 'Operation Metro Surge.' He had previously been released on his own recognizance and had a pending asylum application, a valid work permit, and no criminal history. He filed a petition asking the court to order his release, which the court granted on January 22, 2026, on two independent grounds: the government's legal theory for detaining him lacked support, and separately, detaining him without first formally revoking his earlier release order violated his constitutional due process rights.
After winning his release, Mahad S. filed a motion asking the court to award him attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), a federal law that allows people who win lawsuits against the government to recover legal costs unless the government's position was 'substantially justified.' The government did not dispute that Mahad S. had won the case, but argued its legal interpretation of the immigration detention statute was substantially justified — pointing to a later Eighth Circuit ruling that supported its reading of that statute. The government did not, however, offer any justification for its failure to address the due process argument, which was the independent ground on which Mahad S. actually prevailed.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan granted the motion in part. The court found that because the government never responded to the due process argument — the argument that ultimately decided the case — the government could not show its position was substantially justified on that ground. The court also excluded one billing entry of $326.40 for reviewing a show-cause order that did not appear on the court docket, finding it facially unreasonable. As a result, Mahad S. was awarded $5,765.83 in attorneys' fees and $6.70 in costs.
The detailed version
- Siad v. Mullin · No. 0:26-cv-00476
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Aug. 7, 2026
Background
Mahad S., described in the opinion as a Somali national with a pending asylum application, had lived in Minnesota for three years before his arrest. He held a valid work permit, had no criminal history, and had been formally released on his own recognizance under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 in November 2022. On December 6, 2025, ICE officers arrested and detained him as part of an enforcement operation called "Operation Metro Surge."
On January 20, 2026, Mahad S. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal request asking a court to order the government to release a person it is holding. He argued that he remained subject to the § 1226 release regime and that the government violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights by detaining him without first formally revoking his release order. The government filed a one-paragraph boilerplate response arguing that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) required his mandatory detention because any noncitizen present in the country without having been formally admitted is deemed to be "seeking admission." The government did not address the due process argument.
On January 22, 2026, the court granted the petition on two separate and independent grounds: (1) the government's reading of § 1225(b)(2) was, at that time, novel and without legal support; and (2) the Due Process Clause required immediate release because no official made any individualized decision to revoke Mahad S.'s § 1226 release. The government was ordered to release Mahad S. by 4:00 p.m. on January 23, 2026, but released him on the afternoon of January 22.
The EAJA Motion
Mahad S. timely filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The EAJA allows a prevailing party with a qualifying net worth to recover fees and expenses incurred in civil litigation against the United States unless the government's litigation position was "substantially justified" or special circumstances make an award unjust. A motion under the EAJA must be filed within thirty days of a final judgment.
Mahad S. sought a total of $6,092.23 in fees and costs. The government did not dispute that Mahad S. was the prevailing party. The government bore the burden of proving its position was substantially justified — meaning justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person, even if not ultimately correct.
The Government's Substantially Justified Argument
The government argued its § 1225(b)(2) interpretation was substantially justified, pointing to a subsequent Eighth Circuit decision, Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2026), which supported the government's view that § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention of noncitizens encountered in the interior of the country. The court acknowledged this development but noted that a later Ninth Circuit decision, Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026), rejected the same interpretation, as had courts in the Second, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits.
Why the Avila Decision Did Not Defeat the Fee Motion
The court held that even accepting that Avila lent some support to the government's statutory argument, that argument did not determine the outcome of the habeas petition. The court had granted Mahad S.'s petition on a separate, independent due process ground: the government detained him without first revoking his existing § 1226 release order, without any individualized determination. The government never addressed this due process argument in the underlying litigation, and never argued in response to the fee motion that its failure to do so was justified. Because the due process ground was the winning argument — and because the government offered no justification for ignoring it — the court found the government's overall litigation position was not substantially justified.
Fee Calculation
The court agreed with the government in part on the amount. It excluded one billing entry: 1.25 hours ($326.40) billed on January 20, 2026, for reviewing a show-cause order that does not appear on the docket. The remaining fees and costs were awarded.
Disposition
The court granted Mahad S.'s EAJA motion in part. Mahad S. was awarded $5,765.83 in attorneys' fees and $6.70 in costs.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.