An immigrant sued ICE and won. A judge said the government must pay back his $40,000 in legal fees

Chris Palmer and Abraham Gutman, The Philadelphia Inquirer on Apr 24, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge in Philadelphia has ordered the government to pay nearly $40,000 in legal fees to an immigrant who sued ICE over its attempt to make him wear an ankle monitor — a new wrinkle in how the judiciary has been pushing back on President Donald Trump’s aggressive deportation agenda.

U.S. District Judge Kai N. Scott wrote in a memorandum this week that it is unlawful and unreasonable for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to request that the man be required to wear the monitor as his case progressed through immigration court.

Scott’s decision, legal experts said, appeared to be the first local instance in which an immigrant was awarded attorney’s fees in a lawsuit challenging detention. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals opened the door for immigrants to recoup legal costs in such matters in February.

The volume of petitions challenging detention has exploded nationwide in recent months as the Trump administration has sought to detain nearly every undocumented immigrant encountered by authorities.

And although judges in Philadelphia’s federal court have ruled almost universally in favor of immigrants in such cases — and ordered people held under the administration’s mandatory detention policy to be released — the rulings have not yet led to orders for the government to reimburse plaintiffs’ legal fees.

That is in part because a ruling against the government — even one that describes its actions as illegal — is not enough to justify such reimbursements, said Anthony Enriquez, a lawyer on the case and the vice president of U.S. Advocacy and Litigation at the Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center in New York.

“It’s only when the government goes beyond the pale … very clearly not grounded in fact or law, and blatantly (breaks) the law,” Enriquez said.

It is also because the ability to recoup such costs is relatively new: The Third Circuit panel ruled three months ago that judges can order the government to pay immigrants’ legal fees in detention cases if the government’s actions were not “substantially justified.”

Judges in federal court in Philadelphia have so far rejected the few requests for legal fees in mandatory detention cases, as broader arguments around the legality of the government’s policy remain in flux. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to consider the issue in May.

In the case that was successful this week, Enriquez and his colleagues from the Defender Association of Philadelphia did not argue that their client — whom they identified only by his initials, N.N. — had been illegally detained. Instead, the case centered on the fact that ICE had attempted to place additional conditions on him once he was released on bond.

The man came to the United States from Nigeria in December 2024 and overstayed his visa, which expired in March 2025, court records show. A month later, he was arrested in Upper Darby for simple assault, and he was taken into ICE custody in May.

The agency then began trying to deport him, but over the summer an immigration judge determined he was neither a safety nor a flight risk and ordered him released on bond as his bid to stay in the country was litigated in immigration court.

ICE did not appeal that decision, but ordered him to wear an ankle monitor while his case was pending. His lawyers then filed a habeas petition, saying ICE was not authorized to make such a decision, and that it violated the man’s due process rights.

Scott, the judge, agreed, and in November ordered ICE to remove the ankle monitor.

Several months later — just two days after the Third Circuit’s ruling on attorneys’ fees in habeas cases — the man’s lawyers filed a motion to recoup the legal costs in his case.

Scott found that ICE’s attorney could not justify the agency’s actions, and ordered the government to pay $39,419.93 in attorney’s fees.

The Justice Department declined to comment Friday.

One of the attorneys on the case, Mikaela Wolf-Sorokin of the Defender Association, said the number of immigrants who need legal assistance has exploded, and she hopes the potential to recoup legal fees might encourage private lawyers to be more willing to jump into the fray.

Her colleague Lilah Thompson agreed, but lamented that the government was being forced to spend taxpayer dollars to resolve legal issues it created.

“This money … belongs to the people,” Thompson said, “and having the government do illegal things, and having the people have to pay for that, is really egregious.”