(José Niño, Headline USA) The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has sided with two immigrants who were held in detention for extended periods without being given the opportunity to appear before a judge to request their release on bond. The Monday decision involved Adolph Michelin and Adewumi Abioye, who both challenged their detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as unconstitutional.
Abioye, a Nigerian citizen, came to the United States on a tourist visa in 2018. After completing a prison sentence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, ICE detained him in May 2022. He remained locked up for more than 16 months without a hearing to determine whether he could be released on bond. In October 2023, Abioye filed a legal petition arguing that holding him for so long without a hearing violated his constitutional right to due process under the Fifth Amendment.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania agreed with Abioye and ordered that he receive a bond hearing. Following that hearing, he was released in December 2023 after posting a $5,000 bond. Abioye then requested that the government pay his legal bills under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), a law that allows people to recover attorneys’ fees when the government’s position in a case was not reasonably justified. The District Court granted his request, awarding him $18,224.58.
Michelin’s case followed a similar path. The Jamaican citizen was taken into ICE custody in January 2022 and spent more than a year detained without a bond hearing. He filed his own legal challenge in early 2023, and the District Court ordered his release on a $10,000 bond. Like Abioye, Michelin sought payment of his legal expenses under the EAJA and was awarded $15,841.60.
The government appealed both fee awards to the Third Circuit, making two main arguments: first, that legal challenges to immigration detention don’t qualify as “civil actions” under the EAJA, and second, that its handling of Abioye’s case was reasonable enough that he shouldn’t recover fees. The appeals court rejected both arguments and upheld the awards.
The Third Circuit emphasized the long-standing recognition of habeas corpus—the legal mechanism both men used to challenge their detention—as a civil action. The court stated, “Habeas actions are civil actions. They have been since before our Nation’s Founding.”
Regarding the government’s claim that its position was justified, the court found that holding Abioye for more than 16 months without a hearing was unreasonable. The court concluded, “When detention becomes unreasonable, the Due Process Clause demands a hearing.”
The case can be found here.
José Niño is the deputy editor of Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/JoseAlNino
