Cases compared
Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios v. Vernon Liggins, Acting Field Office Director, Baltimore, Maryland, Immigration and Customs Enforcement vs. Matthew Putra, Director of the Detroit Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Petitioners v. Juan Manuel Lopez-Campos, et al. vs. In Re Patrick Starzenski, Petitioner
No. 25-1223No. 25-1415No. 25-7296
Side by side
| Fact | Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios v. Vernon Liggins, Acting Field Office Director, Baltimore, Maryland, Immigration and Customs Enforcement | Matthew Putra, Director of the Detroit Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Petitioners v. Juan Manuel Lopez-Campos, et al. | In Re Patrick Starzenski, Petitioner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1223 | 25-1415 | 25-7296 |
| Status | Before Arguments | Before Arguments | Dismissed |
| Date | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) |
| Question presented | Whether, under EAJA, "any civil action" encompasses an action seeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge civil immigration detention? | 1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like respondents, are present in the United States without having been admitted? 2. Whether detaining respondents without a bond hearing during their removal proceedings comports with due process? | 1. Why and if they are above to the law and have permission to commit illegal or even criminal commitments in this jurisdiction from government of the United States of America, and if this permission is to treat people inhumanly and seizing them and their properties and keeping in custody without any reasons and indefinitely? 2. How many time really court may proceed Habeas Corpus regarding unreasonable and unlawful detention in these circumstances? 3. If, handling great power over several states in behalf of United States of America, the U.S. Court of Appeals can just refuse to justice process and procedure Habeas Corpus in these circumstances, and in result of that, allow to indefinite, without limits, unreasonable, and even unauthorized detention? 4. Whether statute neither require to indicate “ immediate-custodian ” nor even define this term? |
| Summary | This case asks whether a person who wins a habeas corpus challenge to civil immigration detention may recover attorney’s fees and costs from the federal government under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Court will decide whether such a habeas case counts as a “civil action” under that law. | This pending case concerns whether federal immigration law requires immigration officials to detain certain noncitizens who are in the United States without formal admission while their removal cases are pending. It also asks whether holding those individuals without a bond hearing during those proceedings violates the Constitution's due process guarantee. | This case appears to come from a pro se habeas corpus filing in which Patrick Starzenski claims he is being unlawfully detained and that federal courts did not properly consider his request for release. The petition asks the Supreme Court to clarify when courts must hear habeas petitions challenging allegedly indefinite detention and whether a detainee must identify an "immediate custodian" to seek relief. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Immigration
- Why compared
- Reviewed Immigration tags connect these current-term public cases.
Related
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.