Over the last several decades, the U.S. government has unlawfully detained increasing numbers of immigrants, presenting serious constitutional problems. But immigrants face an uphill battle to obtaining release from unlawful detention if they are unable to pay for counsel.

In 1980, Congress addressed this access-to-counsel problem with the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). The Act permits victorious litigants to recover attorneys’ fees from the government. It thus incentivizes pro bono lawyering in cases where plaintiffs would be unable to pay for counsel.

But the U.S. government has opposed these fees by arguing that EAJA does not apply to immigrants who win freedom from detention through a habeas corpus cases. The Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center and other immigrants’ rights organizations field an amicus brief in support of the awarding of attorneys’ fees to immigrants who win their freedom from detention through a habeas corpus proceeding.

What is the legal argument in this case?

This amicus brief argues that because the plain language of EAJA applies to “any civil action,” EAJA attorneys’ fees should be available to habeas petitioners challenging their civil immigration detention.

What is the status of this case?

The Third Circuit adopted the textual argument advanced in the amicus brief, holding that the plain language of EAJA unambiguously includes habeas corpus suits seeking release from immigration detention.

February 2, 2026

November 27, 2024