Cases compared
Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios v. Vernon Liggins, Acting Field Office Director, Baltimore, Maryland, Immigration and Customs Enforcement vs. Richard Vasquez v. Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division vs. Eric Gomez v. David Saccoccio
Criminal Procedure cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1223No. 25-1246No. 25-1314
Side by side
| Fact | Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios v. Vernon Liggins, Acting Field Office Director, Baltimore, Maryland, Immigration and Customs Enforcement | Richard Vasquez v. Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division | Eric Gomez v. David Saccoccio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1223 | 25-1246 | 25-1314 |
| Status | Before Arguments | Before Arguments | Before Arguments |
| 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. Does 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i) impose a “reasonable attorney” or a “reasonable applicant” test for due diligence? If the former, are there exceptions to account for egregious misconduct by an applicant’s lawyer? 2. Would construing the AEDPA to bar merits review in a capital case of a substantial IAC claim, one not previously reviewed on the merits by any court, violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? 3. When an applicant is unaware of the relevant facts when he files a first-in-time application for habeas relief, are later-filed Brady and Napue/Giglio claim “second or successive”? 4. Is a court reviewing a federal habeas application, as a matter of due process or otherwise, required to resolve disputes over authority to speak for the State? What level of deference is owed to the State’s position expressed by an authorized representative? | Whether combining general principles from two factually dissimilar cases conflicts with this Court’s precedents requiring lower courts to define rights with specificity and use close factual analogues in determining whether a Fourth Amendment constitutional right is clearly established. |
| 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. | Richard Vasquez asks the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s refusal to consider his federal habeas claims on the merits. He argues that the court wrongly treated his later filing as barred under AEDPA’s rules for successive petitions, even though he says his lawyers’ serious failures and the State’s alleged nondisclosure of false evidence prevented him from raising the claims earlier. | Officer Eric Gomez asks the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that allowed David Saccoccio’s Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim to proceed after Gomez struck him with a less-lethal foam-projectile round while Saccoccio was fleeing, climbing a fence into a private yard, and violating a curfew. The dispute concerns whether Gomez was entitled to qualified immunity because the law allegedly did not clearly establish that his conduct was unconstitutional. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Criminal Procedure
- Why compared
- Reviewed Criminal Procedure 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.