Adewumi Abioye v. Warden Moshannon Valley Correctional Center
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
In denying rehearing en banc, the Third Circuit left intact a panel ruling that the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) permits attorney-fee awards to non-citizens who prevail in immigration-related habeas petitions. The dissenting judges argued that the statute’s phrase “any civil action” does not clearly waive sovereign immunity for such fee claims and highlighted a deep circuit split on that question.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether a habeas petition brought by an alien in immigration custody is a “civil action” under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), thereby waiving the federal government’s sovereign immunity and allowing EAJA attorney-fee awards.
Circuit Positions
EAJA phrase “any civil action” includes immigration-related habeas petitions; sovereign immunity waived and fees are available.
Habeas petitions are not “civil actions” under EAJA; the United States retains sovereign immunity against fee awards.
Conflict Summary
The Second, Third, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits hold that the term “any civil action” unambiguously covers immigration habeas petitions, so prevailing petitioners may recover fees from the government. The Fourth and Fifth Circuits hold that habeas proceedings are sui generis and not ‘civil actions’ for EAJA purposes, meaning sovereign immunity bars such awards.