Cases compared
Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios v. Vernon Liggins vs. Rudra v. United States vs. Ponzo v. United States
No. 25-1223No. 26-259No. 26-285
Side by side
| Fact | Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios, Petitioner v. Vernon Liggins, Acting Field Office Director, Baltimore, Maryland, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. | Soumya Rudra, Petitioner v. United States | Christopher Ponzo v. United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios, Petitioner v. Vernon Liggins, Acting Field Office Director, Baltimore, Maryland, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.25-1223 | Soumya Rudra, Petitioner v. United States26-259 | Christopher Ponzo v. United States26-285 |
| Status | Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios, Petitioner v. Vernon Liggins, Acting Field Office Director, Baltimore, Maryland, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.Before Arguments | Soumya Rudra, Petitioner v. United StatesDismissed | Christopher Ponzo v. United StatesBefore Arguments |
| Date | Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios, Petitioner v. Vernon Liggins, Acting Field Office Director, Baltimore, Maryland, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.Argued Jan 11, 2027 | Soumya Rudra, Petitioner v. United StatesOctober Term 2026 (2026–2027) | Christopher Ponzo v. United StatesOctober Term 2026 (2026–2027) |
| Question presented | Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios, Petitioner v. Vernon Liggins, Acting Field Office Director, Baltimore, Maryland, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.Whether, under EAJA, "any civil action" encompasses an action seeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge civil immigration detention? | Soumya Rudra, Petitioner v. United States1. Whether a rebuttable presumption standard of review should apply to a defendant’s appeal of his sentence challenging that the sentence is in violation of the 18 U.S.C.§3553(A)? 2. Whether U.S.S.G. §2G2.1 enhancement for use of a computer in a case involving child pornography is improper due to its inherent and nearly universal application in such cases resulting in a double counting for the same conduct? | Christopher Ponzo v. United Statesthe forfeiture order entered outside of the defendant’s presence? |
| Summary | Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios, Petitioner v. Vernon Liggins, Acting Field Office Director, Baltimore, Maryland, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.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. | Soumya Rudra, Petitioner v. United StatesSoumya Rudra challenged his federal sentence, questioning how appeals courts should review his sentencing claim and disputing enhancements for closely timed offenses and computer use. The Supreme Court refused to hear his case (denied review), so it did not decide those arguments. | Christopher Ponzo v. United StatesChristopher Ponzo challenges a trial court order requiring him to forfeit $13.2 million, arguing it was entered after sentencing without following required procedures or giving him a chance to respond or present evidence. His petition was distributed for a Supreme Court conference; that is not a grant of review. |
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.