The ongoing debate over the legality of immigration detention practices in the United States could reach a pivotal moment if the Supreme Court decides to hear Montoya Palacios v. Liggins. The case focuses on whether attorneys representing detained migrants can recover fees from the government under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The Supreme Court has been asked to settle a dispute among circuit courts regarding the classification of habeas corpus petitions that challenge immigration detention.
The number of people in detention has risen significantly following a substantial funding increase for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by former President Trump in 2025. The Act allocated nearly $75 billion for ICE to enhance its detention capabilities. As a result, ICE now holds over 60,000 migrants daily, up from 40,000 in early 2025.
Attorneys have responded by filing frequent habeas corpus lawsuits seeking clients’ release. Despite this surge in litigation, courts are divided on the application of EAJA’s attorneys’ fees provision in these cases. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th and 5th Circuits have ruled that such habeas actions are not “civil actions” under EAJA. However, the 2nd, 3rd, and parts of the 4th Circuits maintain they are, as they share characteristics of civil actions typically covered under EAJA.
The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear the case could resolve this inconsistency, significantly impacting attorneys’ willingness to pursue legal actions on behalf of detained migrants. The stakes are high, as a ruling could influence not only legal strategy but also ICE’s operational scope. The justices are scheduled to discuss the case in private conference, though it remains uncertain if and when they will act.
Given that almost half of all detained migrants are held within the 4th and 5th Circuits, the ability to recover attorneys’ fees in these jurisdictions could alter legal access for thousands. If determined to be outside EAJA’s reach, lawyers may be less inclined to take on habeas cases, limiting judicial oversight of ICE’s detention practices.
For further details, the full article can be accessed at SCOTUSblog.