In a first for Nebraska, federal judge awards attorney’s fees to immigrant who was detained without bond hearing

For the first time, a federal judge in Nebraska has awarded court costs and attorney’s fees to an immigrant who prevailed in a lawsuit challenging his detention without bond.

Senior U.S. District Court Judge John Gerrard, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, issued the ruling on Tuesday and awarded $1,535.23 to Edgar Eduardo Cadillo Salazar. Gerrard had previously ruled that Salazar’s detention at the Cass County Jail without bond was unconstitutional and ordered the government to provide him with a bond hearing or release him from custody.

Under the federal Equal Access to Justice Act, individuals and businesses that prevail in civil lawsuits against the federal government can file a motion to hold the government liable for attorney’s fees and court costs. Judges can order the government to cover those costs unless they find that the government’s position was “substantially justified,” or if “special circumstances make an award unjust.”

Before last summer, when the Department of Homeland Security revised its longstanding interpretation of statute, only immigrants who were encountered at the border or other ports of entry were subject to mandatory detention. Immigrants encountered after residing in the U.S. were typically subject to discretionary detention and eligible for a bond hearing.

The new interpretation has led to detention without bond for tens of thousands of immigrants who would have previously been eligible to bond out – and it’s led to an endless stream of wrongful detention lawsuits in Nebraska and around the country. A Reuters investigation found that federal courts have ruled against the mandatory detention policy more than 4,400 times.

In Gerrard’s order granting Salazar’s request for attorney’s fees, he said the government’s position that all undocumented immigrants are ineligible for bond hearings was not substantially justified.

“This ‘new understanding’ of a decades-old statute has resulted in the government detaining hundreds of thousands of nonviolent individuals, often without due process or other constitutional protections,” Gerrard wrote. “It has also sparked thousands of lawsuits where courts have ordered release of those wrongfully detained, for which neither immigration courts nor the Department of Justice have seemed prepared.”

He continued: “The government has not provided any justification, let alone a substantial one, for its radical departure from the historical treatment of noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection. Its arguments rely purely on statutory interpretation; the government apparently expects it can transform an entire area of administrative law because it unilaterally decided that, for thirty years, everyone was wrong about what a statute meant.”

Salazar was later denied bond by an immigration judge and remains in custody, according to his attorney, Alexander Smith.

Two similar motions were denied last month by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bazis, an appointee of former President Joe Biden. In both cases, Bazis had ruled in favor of the detained immigrants, and they were later released on bond per her orders. But in her opinions denying attorney’s fees under the EAJA, she found that the government’s position on mandatory detention was “substantially justified.”

“The Court cannot say that the Federal Respondents’ pre-litigation decision to treat [the respondent] as being subject to mandatory detention, while not ultimately correct in this Court’s view, lacked a reasonable basis in law or fact,” Bazis wrote in a footnote of her opinions.

The issue of mandatory detention is currently under consideration by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Nebraska and other Midwest states. In oral arguments last month, the appellate court’s conservative judges appeared friendly to the mandatory detention policy.