Blanche v. Blanche
Christian A.S.C. v. Todd Blanche, United States Attorney General; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; David Venturella, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; David Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Mary De Anda-Ybarra, Director, El Paso Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Warden, Director of the El Paso Camp East Montana
- John Tunheim
- 0:26-cv-00778
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Christian A.S.C. v. Blanche, Judge Tunheim denied the government's request to pause an attorney's fees motion pending a Supreme Court ruling.
People who have won habeas corpus challenges to immigration detention and are seeking attorney's fees from the government under the Equal Access to Justice Act, particularly those with pending fee motions in the District of Minnesota.
What happened
In Christian A.S.C. v. Blanche (Civil No. 26-778), an immigration detainee named Christian A.S.C. was arrested by immigration officials earlier in 2026. He filed a petition asking the court to order his release — a legal tool called a writ of habeas corpus — and the court granted that petition on February 6, 2026, ordering his immediate release. He then filed a motion seeking to recover attorney's fees under a federal law called the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which allows prevailing parties to recover legal costs from the government in certain cases.
Instead of responding to the fees motion on time, the government asked the court to put the case on hold — a request called a motion for abeyance — until the U.S. Supreme Court decides a separate case, Montoya Palacios v. Liggins, which will address whether someone who wins a habeas challenge to immigration detention can recover attorney's fees under the EAJA. The government argued the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision would be relevant to this fees dispute. Christian A.S.C. opposed the delay.
Judge John R. Tunheim denied the government's motion to pause the proceedings. The court noted that the party seeking a stay bears the burden of showing it is needed, and that the court had already decided — in a related case — that EAJA fees are available in immigration habeas cases unless the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court instructs otherwise. Finding no good cause for a stay, Judge Tunheim denied the motion for abeyance and ordered the government to respond to the attorney's fees motion by August 21, 2026.
The detailed version
- Blanche v. Blanche · No. 0:26-cv-00778
- John Tunheim
- Aug. 17, 2026
Background
Petitioner Christian A.S.C. was arrested by immigration officials earlier in 2026. On January 28, 2026, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal challenge to the lawfulness of his detention. On February 6, 2026, the court granted the petition and ordered his immediate release. See Christian A.S.C. v. Bondi, Civ. No. 26-778, 2026 WL 323098 (D. Minn. Feb. 6, 2026).
Petitioner is represented by counsel from Lathrop GPM LLP and Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid. Respondents — a group of federal officials including the U.S. Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and immigration enforcement directors — are represented by the United States Attorney's Office.
The Fees Motion and the Abeyance Request
On July 9, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The EAJA allows a prevailing party in certain civil actions against the government to recover attorney's fees unless the government's position was substantially justified.
Instead of filing a timely response to the fees motion, Respondents on July 23, 2026 moved to hold the proceedings in abeyance — meaning to pause or suspend them — pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Montoya Palacios v. Liggins, No. 25-1223. That case is expected to address whether a prevailing petitioner in a habeas challenge to immigration detention is eligible for attorney's fees under the EAJA. Respondents argued, in effect, that the Supreme Court's forthcoming ruling could render the current fees motion moot or significantly shape its resolution.
Petitioner opposed the motion for abeyance.
The Court's Analysis
The court applied the standard that the party requesting a stay bears the burden of establishing its need, citing Kreditverein der Bank Austria Creditanstalt fur Niederösterreich und Bergenland v. Nejezchleba, 477 F.3d 942, 945 n.3 (8th Cir. 2007).
The court noted that it had already addressed the underlying legal question in a related case, Riky A.M.L. v. Blanche, Civ. No. 26-1429, 2026 WL 2241589, at *3 n.1 (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2026), where it concluded that EAJA fees are available in immigration habeas cases until the Eighth Circuit or the Supreme Court instructs otherwise. Given that existing position, the court found no good cause to grant a stay simply because the Supreme Court has accepted a case that may address the same question.
Disposition
The court denied Respondents' Motion for Abeyance (Docket No. 48) and ordered Respondents to file a response to Petitioner's Motion for Attorney's Fees (Docket No. 40) by 5:00 p.m. on August 21, 2026. The underlying attorney's fees motion remains pending.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.