Mullin v. Mullin
Gabriel A.H.L. v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; David Venturella, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; David Easterwood, Director, St. Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Miguel Vergara, Director, San Antonio Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Charlotte Collins, Warden, T. Don Hutto Detention Center
- John Tunheim
- 0:26-cv-00860
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Gabriel A.H.L. v. Mullin, Judge Tunheim granted the petitioner $6,234.93 in attorney's fees after the government failed to substantially justify its immigration detention of him.
Immigrants who are detained by ICE and successfully challenge that detention in federal court may be interested in this ruling, as it addresses when the government must pay the prevailing detainee's attorney's fees under the EAJA. The ruling is also relevant to immigration attorneys and legal aid organizations representing such individuals, and to government agencies regarding the consequences of failing to address all legal grounds raised against a detention.
What happened
In Gabriel A.H.L. v. Mullin (Civil No. 26-860, D. Minn.), a man identified as Gabriel A.H.L. had earlier won release from immigration detention after filing a petition challenging the lawfulness of his arrest and detention. Federal immigration agents had allegedly shot through a door, forcibly entered his home without a judicial warrant, and arrested him without knowledge of his immigration status. The court previously ordered his immediate release, finding he was not subject to mandatory detention under the relevant immigration statute.
After winning release, Gabriel A.H.L. filed a motion seeking attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), a federal law that allows people who prevail in suits against the government to recover legal fees when the government's position was not substantially justified. The government opposed the request on two grounds: first, arguing that a legal doctrine called sovereign immunity blocked any fee award in immigration detention cases; second, arguing that its legal position was reasonable because a federal appeals court had recently sided with part of the government's interpretation of the detention statute.
Judge John R. Tunheim rejected both of the government's arguments. The court found that EAJA fees are available in this type of case, and that even though the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals had adopted some of the government's statutory arguments in a separate case, the government here had failed to meaningfully respond to several other grounds for relief — including the warrantless home entry and the petitioner's transfer to Texas allegedly to block access to a lawyer. Because the government's position was not substantially justified across all aspects of the law, and because the 23.5 hours of legal work at $265.10 per hour were reasonable, Judge Tunheim granted the motion and awarded Gabriel A.H.L. $6,234.93 in attorney's fees and costs, to be paid to Hennepin County Adult Representation Services.
The detailed version
- Mullin v. Mullin · No. 0:26-cv-00860
- John Tunheim
- Aug. 18, 2026
Background
On January 30, 2026, Gabriel A.H.L. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a court order challenging the lawfulness of his detention) against officials of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). According to the petition, federal immigration agents shot through a door, forcibly entered his private residence without his consent or a judicial warrant, and arrested him without actual knowledge or reasonable suspicion of his identity or immigration status. He alleged that his detention violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
On February 6, 2026, the court granted the habeas petition, concluding that Gabriel A.H.L. was not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and ordered his immediate release. The respondents did not file any affidavits or exhibits opposing the petition, nor did they dispute the petitioner's factual allegations. Despite the court's order requiring release within 48 hours, respondents released the petitioner 27 hours after that deadline.
The Fee Motion
On May 7, 2026, Gabriel A.H.L. moved for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The EAJA entitles a prevailing party in a civil action against the United States or a federal agency to an award of 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 would make an award unjust. The petitioner sought $6,234.93, comprising $6,229.93 in legal services (23.5 hours at $265.10 per hour) and $5.00 in costs, to be paid to Hennepin County Adult Representation Services.
Respondents' Objections
Respondents raised two principal arguments against the fee award:
1. Sovereign Immunity: Respondents argued that the doctrine of sovereign immunity — which generally shields the federal government from suit unless it consents — bars EAJA fee awards in habeas challenges to immigration detention.
2. Substantial Justification: Respondents argued their litigation position was substantially justified because the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals had, in Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2026), adopted certain aspects of the government's interpretation of § 1225(b)(2).
Court's Analysis
Jurisdiction / Sovereign Immunity
The court rejected the sovereign immunity argument, citing its own recent decision in a similar case, Riky A.M.L. v. Blanche, Civ. No. 26-1429, 2026 WL 2241589 (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2026), and concluded that EAJA fees are available in this context.
Substantial Justification
The court acknowledged that the Eighth Circuit's Avila decision had adopted certain aspects of respondents' statutory interpretation of § 1225(b)(2). However, the court emphasized that Gabriel A.H.L.'s habeas petition raised multiple grounds for relief that went well beyond the statutory detention question — including the warrantless forced entry into his home, his arrest without reasonable suspicion of his immigration status, public statements allegedly branding him as having attempted to murder a federal agent, and his transfer to Texas purportedly to prevent contact with counsel. Respondents' opposition memorandum did not meaningfully address these allegations.
Because respondents failed to respond to several grounds for relief upon which the petitioner was likely to prevail, the court concluded that respondents' position was not substantially justified "in all aspects of the law" — the standard required to defeat an EAJA fee award. The court again cited Riky A.M.L. as directly on point.
Reasonableness of Fees
After reviewing the declarations submitted in support of the motion, the court found the 23.5 hours of legal work expended and the hourly rate of $265.10 to be reasonable, and therefore accepted the total requested amount of $6,234.93.
Disposition
The court granted the motion for attorney's fees in full. Respondents were ordered to direct the $6,234.93 award to Hennepin County Adult Representation Services.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.