Tuan Thai v. John Ashcroft

The petitioner, a native of Vietnam, was charged and convicted of assault in the third degree-domestic violence, taking a motor vehicle without permission, and third degree rape before the INS issued removal proceedings. The Immigration Judge found that the petitioner was removable as charged by the INS.

The petitioner left Vietnam with neither a passport nor an official exit visa from the Vietnamese government. The INS has yet to receive travel documents for the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner has been in INS custody since the IJ's ruling. In February, the petitioner's custody review was conducted and the INS District Director ordered that the petitioner's detention would be continued since the petitioner could not show that he would not be a danger to the community. If released, the petitioner is subject to 36-48 months of community supervision as part of his prior sentences.

The District Director then transferred the petitioner's case to the INS Headquarters Post-Order Detention Unit for further review. The district court of Washington heard the case and held that under Zadvydas, "once removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable…continued detention of an alien is no longer authorized by statute. In that case, the alien must be released, but the release 'may and should' be conditioned as appropriate in the alien's particular circumstances." In this case, the district court held that the petitioner's history of violent crimes do not justify the court's authorization of indefinite detention because the Supreme Court "has guaranteed certain constitutional protections to the petitioner, including the right to remain free from detention once removal from the United States is not reasonably foreseeable.”

Former Employees of Motorola Ceramic Products v. United States

In this case, former workers of Motorola Ceramic Products sought worker adjustment assistance under the Trade Act of 1974. They moved to recover attorney's fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The United States Court of International Trade denied the worker's motion for attorney's fees, and the workers appealed.

The Court Of Appeals held that for the purpose of recovering attorney's fees and expenses under the EAJA, workers are considered "prevailing parties" and therefore may recover costs.