Jesus Morales Lopez v. Juan Baltazar, et al.

Morales Lopez v. Baltazar · United States District Court for the District of Colorado · May 28, 2026 · No. 25-cv-3078-WJM-KAS

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado considers Jesus Morales Lopez’s motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act following habeas proceedings challenging his immigration detention. The Court holds that the Government’s reliance on mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and on an automatic-stay regulation, was not substantially justified. The Court therefore grants the motion in part and denies it in part, reducing the requested fee award.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
Writing for the Court
William J. Martínez
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
Decision date
May 28, 2026
Docket number
25-cv-3078-WJM-KAS
Procedural posture
Petitioner sought attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after obtaining relief on an amended habeas corpus petition challenging his immigration detention. The court considered whether the Government's position was substantially justified and the reasonableness of the requested fee amount.
Standard of review
Under EAJA, the Government bears the burden of showing that its position was substantially justified. Substantial justification is assessed under the totality of the circumstances and asks whether the Government's position was reasonable in law and fact. The amount of fees is determined through a discretionary lodestar analysis, subject to reductions for unreasonable or noncompensable time.
Precedential value
unpublished
Parties
Jesus Morales Lopez v. Juan Baltazar, in his official capacity as warden of the Aurora Contract Detention Facility, Robert Hagan, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Todd Blanche
Disposition
other

Topics

immigration detentionremediesstatutory interpretationadministrative lawjudicial review of agency action

Practice areas

ImmigrationAdministrative lawFederal courtsAttorney's fees

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Morales Lopez was entitled to attorney's fees under EAJA because he was a prevailing party and the Government's position regarding detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), § 1226(a), and the automatic-stay regulation was not substantially justified.
  2. Whether the amount of attorney's fees requested was reasonable and recoverable under EAJA.

Holdings

  1. The Government failed to establish that its position was substantially justified because its reliance on mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than discretionary detention and a bond hearing under § 1226(a), was unreasonable in law and fact under the totality of the circumstances.
  2. Attorney's fees were available to Morales Lopez under EAJA because he prevailed on his detention challenge and the Government's overall position, including its prelitigation position, lacked substantial justification.
  3. The requested $37,926 fee award was excessive and was reduced to $26,223.12 after deducting 19 hours for unnecessary or noncompensable work and applying an additional 20 percent reduction for excessive time and block billing.

Key quotations

The Government’s statutory interpretation of section 1225(b) has been rejected by a vast, overwhelming majority of federal district judges across the country. (Analysis Part II.A)
The Government’s reliance on this regulation during the initial phase of this action constitutes a separate and independent basis for the Court’s conclusion that its position was not substantially justified under EAJA. (Analysis Part II.A)
Morales Lopez is AWARDED attorney’s fees under the EAJA in the total amount of $26,223.12. (Conclusion)

Factual background

Morales Lopez, a Mexican citizen who had lived in Colorado since reentering the United States without inspection in 2006, was arrested by ICE in July 2025. DHS initially detained him under § 1226(a), but later argued that he was subject to mandatory detention as an arriving alien under § 1225(b)(2)(A). After the BIA vacated an immigration judge's bond order, the district court ordered a new bond hearing under § 1226(a), and Morales Lopez was ultimately granted bond and released. He then sought EAJA fees for litigating the detention challenge.

Procedural history

Morales Lopez filed a habeas petition challenging his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and the automatic-stay regulation. After the BIA vacated his bond order, he amended his petition. The court directed Respondents to provide a bond hearing under § 1226(a); Morales Lopez was subsequently granted bond and released. The court granted the amended habeas petition and later addressed his EAJA fee motion, awarding $26,223.12 rather than the $37,926 requested.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…