A.D.G. v. Bondi
Jerson A.D.G. v. Pamela Bondi, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and David Easterwood, in his official capacity as Acting Director, St. Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Donovan Frank
- 0:26-cv-00516
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Jerson A.D.G. v. Pamela Bondi, Judge Donovan W. Frank of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota awarded $4,125.70 in attorneys' fees to the petitioner's counsel after finding that the government's detention of a refugee and its legal defense of that detention were not reasonably justified under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Refugees and other immigrants detained by ICE who successfully challenge their detention in federal court may be able to seek attorneys' fees from the government under the EAJA if the government's position was not reasonably justified. This ruling is also relevant to attorneys who represent such clients on a pro bono (no-charge) basis.
What happened
In Jerson A.D.G. v. Pamela Bondi, a man identified only as Jerson A.D.G. was arrested and detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on January 21, 2026. That same day, he filed a petition asking the court to order his release, which the court granted on January 27, 2026, finding the detention unlawful. His attorneys represented him for free (known as pro bono representation) and then asked the court to order the government to pay their fees under a federal law called the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which allows people who win civil lawsuits against the government to recover attorneys' fees unless the government's position was reasonably justified.
The government argued its detention of Jerson A.D.G. was authorized under a specific immigration statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1159, and that the legal question was unsettled in this region's federal courts. The court rejected both arguments. It found that the government acted against its own internal guidance and ignored clear existing law. The court also cited another recent Minnesota federal court ruling by Judge Tunheim, which stated that the government's position 'flatly contradicts the plain meaning' of the statute and contradicts forty-five years of the government's own agency practice.
Judge Donovan W. Frank granted the motion for attorneys' fees, concluding that the government's legal position — both in arresting and detaining the petitioner and in defending that detention in court — was not reasonably justified. The court awarded $4,125.70 to the petitioner's attorneys. The government did not dispute that the petitioner had won the underlying case, nor did it challenge the dollar amount of the fees requested.
The detailed version
This case arises from the January 21, 2026 arrest and detention of Petitioner Jerson A.D.G. by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). On the same day he was detained, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal mechanism asking a court to order the government to release a person from what is alleged to be unlawful custody. On January 27, 2026, the court granted the petition and ordered Petitioner's immediate release.
Petitioner then moved for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the amount of $4,125.70. The EAJA mandates that courts award fees and costs to the prevailing party in a civil action against the United States unless the government's position was 'substantially justified' or special circumstances make an award unjust. The 'position of the United States' under the EAJA encompasses both the underlying agency action (here, the arrest and detention) and the litigation position taken in court. The purpose of the EAJA is to reduce barriers for ordinary individuals challenging unreasonable government conduct.
To obtain fees, a prevailing party must apply within thirty days of final judgment, establish that they prevailed and are eligible, specify the amount sought, and allege that the government's position was not substantially justified. Eligibility requires a net worth under $2,000,000 for individuals, which Petitioner satisfied. Once the prevailing party meets this burden, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate substantial justification. Respondents conceded that Petitioner was the prevailing party and did not challenge the fee amount — the sole dispute was whether the government's position was substantially justified.
The 'substantially justified' standard does not require the government to have been correct, only that its position was 'justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person,' per Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). Respondents argued that their detention of Petitioner was authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1159 and that the legal issue was unsettled in the Eighth Circuit, citing U.H.A. v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-417, 2026 WL 558824 (D. Minn. Feb. 27, 2026). While unsettled law can sometimes justify a denial of EAJA fees per Bah v. Cangemi, 548 F.3d 680, 684 (8th Cir. 2008), the court rejected the government's framing.
Judge Frank found that the legal framework governing detention of refugees under § 1159 is not unsettled. He cited Judge Tunheim's ruling in U.H.A. v. Bondi, which described the government's position as one that 'flatly contradicts the plain meaning of § 1159(a) and contravenes forty-five years of agency practice.' The court also noted that Respondents acted in direct opposition to their own agency guidance and disregarded clear existing caselaw, characterizing this as 'unreasonable governmental conduct.' Because the government's position was not substantially justified — either in the underlying detention or in its litigation defense — the court granted the EAJA fee motion and awarded $4,125.70 to Petitioner's counsel.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.