Mullin v. Mullin
Jairo L.U.G. v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity; David Venturella, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; David Easterwood, Field Office Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, Minneapolis-St. Paul Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; and Eric Tollefson, Sheriff, Kandiyohi County, custodian of detainees at the Kandiyohi County Jail, in his official capacity
- John Tunheim
- 0:26-cv-03051
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Jairo L.U.G. v. Mullin, Judge Tunheim awarded $6,693.09 in attorney's fees to an immigration detainee whose unlawful arrest by federal officials was not substantially justified.
Immigration detainees who prevail in habeas corpus proceedings after being arrested without a valid administrative warrant may seek attorney's fees from the federal government under the EAJA if the government's position was not substantially justified. Federal immigration officials opposing such fee requests in this district are affected by the court's conclusion that warrantless immigration arrests lacking legal justification do not constitute a substantially justified government position.
What happened
In Jairo L.U.G. v. Mullin (Civ. No. 26-3051, D. Minn.), Jairo L.U.G. was detained by immigration officials on May 22, 2026. A prior court order found that detention unlawful and ordered his immediate release. He then sought attorney's fees from the government under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), a federal law that allows prevailing parties in suits against the United States to recover fees unless the government's position was 'substantially justified.'
The government argued its litigation conduct was reasonable and consistent, and that the court's release order was not grounded in clearly established law contrary to the government's position. The court disagreed, pointing to a series of recent rulings in the same district finding that arresting an immigration detainee without a valid warrant — and without showing that a warrantless arrest was justified — is unlawful, and that release is the proper remedy for such an arrest. Because the government's position that the arrest was lawful lacked substantial justification, fees were appropriate. The government did not meaningfully contest the dollar amount requested.
Judge John R. Tunheim granted Petitioner's motion for attorney's fees, awarding $6,693.09 — covering 22.75 hours of attorney work, seven hours of paralegal work, and $6.00 in costs and disbursements. The court also denied the government's motion to stay the fee proceedings pending a U.S. Supreme Court case, finding no good cause for a stay.
The detailed version
- Mullin v. Mullin · No. 0:26-cv-03051
- John Tunheim
- Aug. 18, 2026
Background
Petitioner Jairo L.U.G. was detained by immigration officials on May 22, 2026. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a court order requiring the government to justify a person's detention — and the court granted that petition on July 1, 2026, concluding his detention was unlawful and ordering his immediate release. Jairo L.U.G. v. Mullin, 2026 WL 1893624 (D. Minn. Jul. 1, 2026).
Following that ruling, Petitioner filed a motion for attorney's fees on July 16, 2026, under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The EAJA entitles a party who prevails against the United States or a federal agency to recover attorney's fees and expenses unless the government's position was 'substantially justified' or special circumstances would make an award unjust. Petitioner requested $6,693.09, broken down as: 22.75 hours of attorney work at $268.11/hour; 7 hours of paralegal work at $82.93/hour; and $6.00 in costs and disbursements.
The federal respondents — officials of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement — opposed the fee motion. They also filed a separate motion to stay the fee proceedings pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Montoya Palacios v. Liggins.
Legal Standards
Under the EAJA, the government's 'position' encompasses both its conduct in litigation and the underlying agency conduct that gave rise to the lawsuit. A position is substantially justified if a reasonable person could think it correct — meaning it has a reasonable basis in both law and fact. Bah v. Cangemi, 548 F.3d 680, 683–84 (8th Cir. 2008). The burden of establishing substantial justification falls on the government.
If fees are appropriate, the amount awarded must be 'reasonable and necessary.' The requesting party must support both the hourly rate claimed and the hours worked, and must exclude excessive, redundant, or unnecessary hours. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433–34 (1983). District courts have broad discretion in assessing reasonableness.
Analysis
Substantial Justification
Respondents argued that their litigation conduct was reasonable because they complied with court orders, advanced a consistent legal theory, and because the court's release order was not grounded in clearly established law contrary to their position.
The court rejected this argument. It noted that it and other judges in the District of Minnesota have repeatedly held — including in multiple recent decisions — that arresting an immigration detainee without a valid I-200 administrative warrant, and without demonstrating that a warrantless arrest was justified, violates federal regulation and statute (8 C.F.R. § 236.1; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1357(a), 1225(b)(2)). Courts in the district have likewise repeatedly held that the proper remedy for such an unlawful arrest is release. The court cited, among others, Hector J.A.S. v. Shea, 2026 WL 1243500 (D. Minn. May 6, 2026), and Ahmed M. v. Bondi, 2026 WL 25627 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2026). Given this consistent body of district court authority, the court concluded that Respondents' position — that Petitioner's arrest was lawful — was not substantially justified.
Reasonableness of Fees
The court noted that Respondents did not meaningfully contest the dollar amount requested. After its own review, the court found the fees reasonable.
Motion to Stay
The court denied Respondents' motion to stay the fee proceedings. The court stated that, until the Eighth Circuit or Supreme Court instructs otherwise, it would treat EAJA fees as available in immigration habeas cases, citing its prior ruling in Riky A.M.L. v. Blanche, 2026 WL 2241589, at *3 n.1 (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2026). The court found no good cause for a stay.
Disposition
1. Petitioner Jairo L.U.G.'s motion for EAJA fees (Docket No. 15) was granted; Petitioner is awarded $6,693.09 in reasonable costs and attorney's fees. 2. Respondents' motion to stay (Docket No. 19) was denied.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.