A federal judge in New York has denied a request for nearly $1.4 million in legal fees sought by advocacy groups that previously succeeded in blocking certain immigration policies introduced during President Donald Trump’s first term.
The ruling comes as an increasing number of lawsuits challenging Trump administration policies reach their conclusion, prompting plaintiffs to seek reimbursement of attorney fees from the federal government under U.S. law.
Dispute Centered on Trump-Era Immigration Policies
Several organizations, including Make the Road New York, filed lawsuits challenging immigration regulations enacted during President Donald Trump’s administration.
Critics argued that these regulations made it more difficult for certain immigrants to obtain lawful permanent resident status (Green Cards) in the United States.
During the litigation, the plaintiffs successfully obtained preliminary injunctions that temporarily prevented the government from enforcing the regulations.
However, before the case reached a final judgment, the administration of President Joe Biden rescinded the disputed regulations in 2021.
Why Did the Court Reject the Attorney Fee Request?
Following the conclusion of the case, the organizations sought reimbursement of nearly $1.4 million in legal expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
The EAJA allows individuals and certain small organizations, under specific circumstances, to recover attorney fees after successfully challenging the federal government in court.
However, U.S. District Judge George Daniels ruled that the organizations did not qualify as "prevailing parties" under the law.
According to Judge Daniels, although the plaintiffs obtained temporary injunctions during the litigation, the case ended because the Biden administration voluntarily rescinded the regulations before the court issued a final ruling on the merits.
As a result, the organizations did not achieve the type of lasting legal victory required to qualify for attorney fee reimbursement.
Impact of a Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision
Judge Daniels’ ruling was also influenced by a recent decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2025.
According to that decision, obtaining a preliminary injunction does not automatically make a person or organization a "prevailing party" if the case ends before a final judgment is issued on the underlying legal dispute.
Legal experts view this as an important development in determining when plaintiffs may recover legal fees in lawsuits against the federal government.
Potential Impact on Other Lawsuits
Legal analysts believe the ruling could affect hundreds of ongoing lawsuits involving policies adopted during President Trump’s second administration.
Even when plaintiffs successfully block government policies on a temporary basis, recovering attorney fees may become more difficult if the case concludes before a final court decision is reached.
This means advocacy organizations, immigrant-rights groups, and nonprofit organizations may need to more carefully evaluate litigation costs when pursuing lengthy legal challenges against the federal government.
Conclusion
The federal court's decision in New York does not change the outcomes of previous immigration lawsuits involving Trump-era policies. However, it establishes an important precedent regarding the recovery of attorney fees.
As debates over immigration policy continue in the United States, rulings like this may significantly influence the legal strategies of advocacy groups and nonprofit organizations in future cases.
