Lawyer fees for immigration detention
Warden v. Michelin
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Federal immigration officials ask the Supreme Court to decide whether the Equal Access to Justice Act allows attorneys’ fees in habeas petitions (court challenges to detention) over immigration detention, including Adolph Michelin’s case.
- What's at stake
- It remains unresolved whether people who challenge immigration detention in court can receive attorneys’ fees under the law.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The petition has been distributed for a conference, but the Supreme Court has not agreed to hear it.
The case asks whether a federal law on attorneys’ fees covers court challenges to immigration detention.
Question presented
Whether the Equal Access to Justice Act’s limited waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity in “any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort),” 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(A), unambiguously and unequivocally encompasses petitions for writs of habeas corpus challenging immigration detention.
What happens next
The Court must decide whether to hear the petition. It was distributed for a conference scheduled for Oct. 9, 2026, but that does not guarantee an order or decision date.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
New document added
Show 4 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, proceeding_type
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.