Judge Denies Legal Fees to Groups that Challenged Trump-era Immigration Rules
Manhattan court rules advocacy groups are not entitled to $1.4 million in fees as Biden reversed the policy before a final judgment
Staff WriterJun 22, 2026, 4:04 AMA federal judge in Manhattan has denied a request for nearly $1.4 million in legal fees sought by advocacy groups that had successfully challenged immigration rules introduced during President Donald Trump’s first term, which made it harder for some immigrants to obtain permanent residency.
In his ruling, US District Judge George Daniels said several groups, including Make the Road New York, did not qualify as “prevailing parties” under the federal Equal Access to Justice Act, which allows individuals and small organisations in certain circumstances to recover limited legal fees from the federal government.
The Equal Access to Justice Act is attracting renewed attention as hundreds of lawsuits against Trump’s second administration begin to conclude and successful attorneys seek fee awards funded by taxpayers.
Daniels ruled that because the Biden administration reversed the immigration rules in 2021 before a final judgment was issued, the groups had not secured an “enduring” legal victory that would justify the fees, despite having won a preliminary injunction blocking the restrictions.
The Justice Department and Make the Road New York did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Law firm Paul Weiss, which was among those seeking fees for representing the groups in the cases, also did not immediately respond.
The decision hinged on the scope of a 2025 US Supreme Court ruling, which held that winning a preliminary injunction does not make a group or individual a “prevailing party” eligible for fees if the case ends before a final ruling on the merits.
In the New York case, Daniels overturned a report by US Magistrate Judge Ona Wang, who had concluded that the Supreme Court ruling did not apply. Wang had said the Equal Access to Justice Act contains its own definition of “prevailing party”.
The Justice Department had urged Daniels to reject the fee request, arguing that the Supreme Court ruling should govern the New York cases. The government also argued that its legal positions in the litigation were substantially justified and that the recommended award was excessive.
For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.