Written by: Milena de Avila
On June 29, 2026, The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Montoya Palacios v. Liggins. As of September 1, 2026, the Southern District of New York is divided on whether to stay or hold pending motions for attorneys’ fees.
In Montoya Palacios, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to deny granting attorney’s fees to a successful petitioner on a habeas petition when seeking release from immigration detention. While Montoya Palacios awaits argument, courts are split on whether to award or stay attorney fees to habeas corpus petitioners who are successful regarding immigration detentions, as that issue may be decided by the Supreme Court.
Background on Montoya Palacios
The petitioner in Montoya Palacios is a citizen and native of El Salvador who was allowed to stay in the United States under the Convention Against Torture, after fleeing to the United States out of fear of gangs and police harassment in El Salvador. On December 8, 2025, Petitioner attended a scheduled Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) check-in in Baltimore where he was served with a Notice of Revocation of Release and a Notice of Removal, which notified Petitioner of ICE’s intent to deport him to Mexico. Petitioner was then transferred to the Christian County Jail in Hopkinsville, Kentucky, where he remained detained.
Petitioner filed a challenge to the legality of his detention, known as a habeas corpus petition. It is through this petition that one can argue in front of a judge that their imprisonment is unlawful and claim that their continued detention is no longer permissible. Here, the Petitioner was successful regarding his habeas corpus petition and was released.
Petitioner requested his attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) which allows a court to “award reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys” to a “prevailing party in any civil action brought by or against . . . any agency or any official of the United States acting in his or her official capacity . . .” Petitioner’s request for attorney fees was denied as the “Fourth Circuit held that attorneys’ fees relating to a habeas petition are not available under the EAJA because such a petition is not a ‘civil action’ for purposes of the EAJA.”
As Montoya Palacios awaits argument, parties all over the country are asking courts to stay their decisions on whether to grant attorney fees regarding successful petitioners of habeas corpus cases regarding ICE detentions.
The Government has responded to petitioners’ motions for attorney’s fees in district courts by arguing “judicial economy.” The Government is asking courts to stay or hold those motions in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Montoya Palacios, which may determine whether attorney fees are available. Judicial economy refers to the principle of maximizing efficiency within the court system and avoiding wasting the judiciary’s time and resources. The Government’s reasoning is that staying fee motions could avoid requiring courts to decide an issue that may be resolved by the Supreme Court and conserve judicial resources. Petitioners have argued that the decision may not be issued for months, leaving fee awards unresolved in the interim.
The September 1 Split
Not all courts agree on whether to stay granting attorney fees until the Supreme Court rules. Some petitioners of habeas corpus seeking release from immigration detention may get awarded attorney fees, and some may not.
Until September 1, 2026, The Southern District of New York had remained consistent in authorizing its staying power as the Supreme Court prepares to settle an important issue of law bearing on this action: Whether attorney fees apply to habeas cases.
The pattern is consistent: After a court grants a petition for the writ of habeas corpus, petitioner asks the court to have their attorney fees paid for by the other side. The Government then cites Montoya Palacios asking for the court to stay its decision until the Supreme Court has ruled on whether attorney fees can be granted to a petitioner of a habeas corpus case.
On September 1, 2026, the Southern District broke away from consistently granting the Government’s motion to stay attorney fees and granted attorney’s fees to a petitioner. The Court found that the pending case of Montoya Palacios was not persuasive in providing a basis for the court to reject existing Second Circuit precedent, which supported the grant of attorney’s fees, and denied the Government’s judicial economy argument.
Now, the Southern District of New York remains divided on whether the courts will award attorney fees for habeas cases or stay until the Supreme Court’s decision. Stating that certain courts can decide to grant attorney fees “[p]articularly given the fact that other courts in this Circuit have stayed their cases pending resolution of Montoya Palacios.”
Sources:
28 U.S.C. § 2241.
28 U.S.C. § 2412.
Judicial Economy, ʟsᴅ.ʟᴀᴡ ʟᴇɢᴀʟ ᴅɪᴄᴛɪᴏɴᴀʀʏ (last updated May 2026).
Martinez v. Joyce, No. 25-CV-10376, 2026 WL 2059788 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2026).
Montoya Palacios v. Liggins, No. 25-1223, 2026 WL 1855057 (U.S. June 29, 2026) (granting certiorari in Palacios v. Bacon, No. 26-6251, 2026 WL 1154321 (4th Cir. Mar. 24, 2026)).
Rahman v. Genalo, No. 25-CV-10203, 2026 WL 2582782 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2026).
Salgado v. Francis, No. 25-CV-6524, 2026 WL 2123305 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2026).