Tall v. Joyce et al.

Opinion

Vg OR EEE Fp United States Attorney Southern District of New York 86 Chambers Street New York, New York 10007

May 15, 2026 BY ECF The Honorable Arun Subramanian United States District Judge United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Tall v. Joyce et al., No. 25 Civ. 9781 (AS) Dear Judge Subramanian: This Office represents the respondents in this case, in which petitioner Abdou Tall (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his immigration detention, which this Court granted and ordered Petitioner released on December 23, 2025. ECF No. 31. On March 23, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion seeking attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”); that motion is now fully briefed. On May 4, 2026, the Court entered an order directing the parties to meet and confer “to discuss whether there’s any resolution that can be reached between them as to the fee issue. If not, the parties can so inform the Court, and the Court will resolve the motion.” ECF No. 41. Having met and conferred per the Court’s instructions, the parties now write to inform the Court that they were not able to agree on a voluntary resolution of the EAJA fees issue, and thus respectfully request that the Court resolve the pending motion. We thank the Court for its consideration of this submission. for fees, Dkt. 35, is DENIED. "The issue for EAJA . is not what the law is when the EAJA application is made, Respectfully submitted, whether the government was substantially justified in the law not to have foreclosed its position during the JAY CLAYTON litigation." CFTC vy. Dunn, 169 F.3d 785, 787 (2d Cir. United States Attorney The government's arguments in this case were made before ultimately rejected by the Second Circuit in Barbosa da . . y. Freden, 175 F-Ath 61 (2d Cir. 2026). Thus, they were not BY: _S/Jean-David Bamea foreclosed. And, as to the merits of those arguments, they J EAN-DAVID BARNEA persuaded multiple federal courts of appeals, Assistant United States Attorney v. Bondi, 166 F Ath 494 (5th Cir. 2026); Avila Tel. (212) 637-2679 interpretation of the relevant statutory is not the right one, it cannot deny that there is room for ce: Counsel of Record (by ECF) disagreement. The Court therefore declines to find that position was not substantially justified, and denies for fees. of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Dkt. 35.