Montoya Palacios v. Liggins
No. 25-1223 · October Term 2026 · Judicial Power
Expected vote 5–4 for Montoya Palacios. Chance of a unanimous ruling 43%.
Before oral argument the model knows only the case's structure: the issue area, which way the lower court ruled, and each justice's record on both. That is not enough to separate cases, so every unargued case carries the petitioner's base rate. The transcript features arrive within days of argument and the number becomes a call.
The case
Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios, an individual facing removal from the U.S., is suing Vernon Liggins, an ICE official, after his supervised release was revoked and he was detained for removal to Mexico. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition challenging the removal procedures. The Supreme Court must decide whether a habeas corpus action challenging civil immigration detention falls under the "any civil action" clause of the Equal Access to Justice Act, which would allow a prevailing party to recover legal fees.
- Does the phrase "any civil action" in the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) include a habeas corpus petition challenging civil immigration detention?
- If habeas corpus actions are covered by EAJA, what implications does this have for individuals seeking to recover legal fees in immigration detention cases?
- How does the Court interpret statutory language like "any civil action" in the context of fee-shifting statutes and the historical understanding of habeas corpus?
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) provides that, "in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort)" by or against the federal government, a court shall award to a prevailing party its fees and costs, unless the court finds certain exceptions present. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (1)(A). The question presented is whether, under EAJA, "any civil action" encompasses an action seeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge civil immigration detention.
Facts of the case (Oyez)
Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States in April 2016 and was placed in removal proceedings. On September 11, 2023, an immigration judge ordered him removed to El Salvador but simultaneously granted him protection barring his removal to El Salvador under the Convention Against Torture. Following that order, Montoya Palacios was released from custody and placed under government supervision, which he says he complied with for years by reporting regularly to immigration authorities. On December 8, 2025, Montoya Palacios attended a scheduled check-in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Baltimore. Officers revoked his supervised release and served him with notice of their intent to remove him to Mexico rather than El Salvador. Officers conducted an informal interview that day, but Montoya Palacios declined to make a statement. He was transferred to a detention facility in Hopkinsville, Kentucky. Montoya Palacios argues that the procedures ICE followed gave him no real chance to raise fears about conditions in Mexico before the government sought to deport him there; the government argues that it provided all legally required process. Montoya Palacios filed a habeas corpus petition in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The district court dismissed his third-country removal claim without prejudice, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Judicial Power cases, and when the lower court ruled conservative; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court conservative | At argument |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often emphasizes textualism and the plain meaning of statutory language, which could lead him to consider whether "any civil action" naturally includes habeas petitions. He also tends to favor judicial restraint and may look to established precedents regarding the scope of fee-shifting statutes. | 57% Montoya Palacios | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 69% Judicial Power · 197 votes | 61% lower court conservative · 734 votes | not yet argued |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas is a strong proponent of originalism and textualism, and he would likely scrutinize the historical understanding of "civil action" and habeas corpus at the time EAJA was enacted. His jurisprudence often reflects a strict interpretation of statutory grants of jurisdiction and remedies. | 57% Montoya Palacios | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 57% Judicial Power · 388 votes | 43% lower court conservative · 1,365 votes | not yet argued |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito typically adheres to a textualist approach, focusing on the precise wording of statutes. He may consider the legislative intent behind the EAJA and whether Congress specifically intended to include habeas corpus actions within its scope, particularly given the unique nature of habeas proceedings. | 57% Montoya Palacios | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 65% Judicial Power · 190 votes | 48% lower court conservative · 722 votes | not yet argued |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor often considers the practical impact of legal interpretations on individuals, particularly in immigration and civil rights cases. She may be inclined to interpret "any civil action" broadly to ensure access to justice for those challenging government actions, consistent with the remedial purpose of EAJA. | 57% Montoya Palacios | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 58% Judicial Power · 149 votes | 76% lower court conservative · 594 votes | not yet argued |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan often employs a pragmatic approach to statutory interpretation, considering both text and purpose. She might examine the overall structure and goals of the EAJA to determine if including habeas petitions aligns with Congress's intent to enable prevailing parties to recover fees against the government. | 63% Montoya Palacios | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 61% Judicial Power · 137 votes | 75% lower court conservative · 543 votes | not yet argued |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch is a prominent textualist and originalist, and he would likely focus on the ordinary public meaning of "any civil action" at the time of EAJA's enactment. He has also shown a willingness to protect individual liberties against government overreach, which could influence his view on access to remedies. | 63% Montoya Palacios | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 69% Judicial Power · 83 votes | 59% lower court conservative · 286 votes | not yet argued |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh often emphasizes clear statutory text and legislative intent. He would likely analyze whether the plain language of EAJA supports the inclusion of habeas corpus petitions, and he may also consider the potential practical implications of such an interpretation for the federal courts. | 57% Montoya Palacios | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 73% Judicial Power · 62 votes | 62% lower court conservative · 244 votes | not yet argued |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett is a textualist who prioritizes the plain meaning of statutory language. She would likely examine the definition of "civil action" as understood in legal parlance and whether habeas corpus fits within that definition for the purposes of the EAJA. | 57% Montoya Palacios | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 71% Judicial Power · 49 votes | 60% lower court conservative · 178 votes | not yet argued |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson often considers the historical context and practical implications of legal interpretations, particularly concerning access to justice and administrative law. She may be inclined to interpret "any civil action" in a manner that supports individuals challenging government detention, consistent with the remedial goals of EAJA. | 63% Montoya Palacios | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 60% Judicial Power · 37 votes | 80% lower court conservative · 127 votes | not yet argued |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.