EAJA Awards
| Agency | Agency subcomponent | Name | Award date | Award amount | Awardees | Claims description | Finding basis | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Department of Commerce | Census Bureau (CEN) | Robyn Kravitz, et al. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, et al. |
$ 2,200,000
|
Diana Alexander; Lauren Rachel Berman; Sarah Bryan; Alejandro Chavez; Virginia Garcia; Michael Kagan; Robyn Kravitz; Michael Kravitz; Yamile Labori; Lazara Yoelvis Magadan; Richard McCune; Jose Moreno; Catherine Nwosu; Nnabugwu Nwosu; Linda Rivas; T. Carter Ross; Martha Sanchez; Sonia Casarez Shafer; Joanne Wilson | Reinstatement of decennial census question not in accordance with law | Settlement Agreement for attorneys fees at significant discount from original fee claims with costs paid by Department of Justice | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Commerce | Census Bureau (CEN) | La Union Del Pueblo Entero, et al. v. Wilbur L. Ross, et al. |
$ 1,318,000
|
La Union Del Pueblo Entero; Texas Senat Hispanic Caucus; Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus; Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; California Latino Legislative Caucus; Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights; Delores Huerta Foundation; Mi Familia Vota Education Fund; somos Un Pueblo Unido; Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials; Labor Council for Latin American Advancement; Promise Arizona; El Pueblo, Inc.; Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus; Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago; Asian Services in Action, Inc.; Minkwon Center for Community Action Inc.; Chelsea Colaborative; Chicanos Por La Causa; Latino Community Fund of Washington; Arizona Legislative Caucus; California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus; California Legislative Black Caucus; OCA-Greater Houston; Friendly House; Four Directions, Inc.; Juanita Valdez-Cox; Gene Wu; Mia Gregerson; Cindy Ryu; Sharon Tomiko Santos; Raj Mukherji; Oliver Semans, Sr. | Reinstatement of decennial census question not in accordance with law | Settlement Agreement for attorneys fees at significant discount from original fee claims with costs paid by Department of Justice | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Commerce | U.S. Census Bureau (CEN) | State of California, et al. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, et al. |
$ 900,000
|
State of California; Los Angeles Unified School District; City of Oakland | Reinstatement of decennial census question not in accordance with law | Settlement Agreement for attorneys fees at significant discount from original fee claims with costs paid by Department of Justice | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Commerce | U.S. Census Bureau (CEN) | City of San Jose and Black Alliance for Just Immigration v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, et al. |
$ 1,400,000
|
City of San Jose; Black Alliance for Just Immigration | Reinstatement of decennial census question not in accordance with law | Settlement Agreement for attorneys fees at significant discount from original fee claims with costs paid by Department of Justice | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | OGC/CFAD | I.J. v. Enrique Lucero, et al., | Null | Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, Inc. | Recitals are as follows: A. On March 22, 2019~ Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the "Petition") and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Case No. 2: 19-cv-O 1904). B. On April 17, 2019, the District Court entered an Order finding that the Office of Refugee Resettlement ("ORR") age determination memorandum dated [ Redaction ] is invalid. C. On April 19, 2019, Petitioner was transferred from the custody of DHS/ICE to the custody of ORR at [ Redaction ] D. On May 10, 2019, the ORR issued a memorandum rescinding the [ Redaction ] age determination letter in accordance with the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court. E. HHS released the Petitioner to a sponsor in the United States on [ Redaction ] and he is now released from HHS custody F. The Court entered an order on May 30, 2019, dismissing Petitioner's claims against Respondents with prejudice. | Settlement – Stipulated Dismisssal | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | Children, Family and Aging Division (CFAD) | Flores EAJA Fees (re July 30 2018 Order) |
$ 648,790
|
Center for HR and Constitutional Law; Univ. of CA Davis School of Law; National Center for Youth Law | Recitals are as follows: A. On April 14, 2018, Flores counsel filed a Motion to Enforce the terms of the Flores Settlement Agreement in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:85-cv-04544). In the Motion, Plaintiffs asserted that that the Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”) has breached the Flores Agreement by implementing policies and/or practices that fall within three categories, including: (1) placing Class Members in Residential Treatment Centers (“RTCs”), staff-secure facilities, and secure facilities; (2) administering psychotropic drugs to Class Members without first obtaining a court order or the information consent of a person authorized by state law to approve such decisions; and (3) unnecessarily prolonging Class Members’ detention in ORR facilities. B. On July 30, 2018, the District Court entered an Order finding that the Government must: (1) transfer all class members out of Shiloh RTC in Manvel, Texas unless a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist has determined or determines that a particular class member poses a risk of harm to self or others; (2) provide access to drinking water at Shiloh RTC and permit class members there to talk privately on the phone as permitted by house rules and regulations; (3) provide written notice to class members of reasons for placing them in a secure or staff-secure facility or RTC; (4) remove from a secure facility any class member who was placed or whose placement has been maintained there solely because the class member “may be chargeable” (as opposed to “is chargeable”) with an offense, the Class Member reported gang involvement or displayed gang affiliation while in care, and Defendants lack probable cause to believe that the individual committed any other specified offense, and/or the Class Member self-disclosed gang involvement prior to placement in ORR custody that does not give risk to probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a specified off | Settlement – Stipulated Dismissal | Show | |
| Other Agency | U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) | Citizant, Inc. v The United States and Halvik Corp. |
$ 275,000
|
Citizant, Inc. | Protest of a procurement award, alleging that agency misevaluated multiple awardees' offers and as a result some awards were improper, and plaintiff was prejudiced. | Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 68(b)(6) Offer of Judgment on Motion for EAJA fees and costs. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | Federal Emergency Management Agency | AGMA Security Service, Inc. v. United States |
$ 32,927
|
REDACTED | Protest - failure to properly follow Solicitation evaluation criteria | The Court found that the Agency's decision to take corrective action after a GAO protest was improper, and the Agency's defense of the revised evaluation report was not substantially justified. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Farm Service Agency (FSA) | In the matter of Farm Service Agency |
$ 55,883
|
Null | Prevented planting credits | Award | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | OGC/R01 | McKee v. Azar, D. Vt. Medicare Beneficiary |
$ 19,000
|
Plaintiff c/o Vermont Legal Aid - per settlement agreement | Please refer to our EAJA recommendation memo, attached below, for more detailed analysis. However, we advised CMS it was in its interest to resolve the issue of fees in conjunction with resolving this case’s substantive issues in order to mitigate the risk of an increased monetary cost to CMS. Additional dollars and/or time would be at stake if further briefing in the case is required, either on the merits or on the issue of fees. If settlement negotiations were to break down, a government loss on the merits was likely based on D. Vt. case law, which would confer prevailing party status on Plaintiff. Notably, an EAJA award was previously issued by the District Judge assigned to this case in a similar Medicare coverage case. | Parties settled EAJA fees per settlement agreement. | Show | |
| Other Agency | Environmental Protection Agency/Office of General Counsel | PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, et al. v. EPA |
$ 126,916
|
Earthjustice | Plaintiffs' claimed that the Administrator's October 31, 2017 Directive banning EPA grant recipients from serving on EPA advisory committees is arbitrary and capricious and violates uniform federal ethics requirements issued by the Office of Government Ethics, FACA, and EPA statutes defining membership requirements on EPA federal advisory committees | Directive: (1) is reviewable under the APA because FACA’s implementing regulations provide law to apply; (2) is not contrary to law merely because it differs from the OGE uniform federal ethics regulations; (3) is arbitrary and capricious because it did not provide a reasoned explanation for EPA’s change in policy; and (4) is a supplemental agency ethics regulation and therefore should have undergone the supplementation process outlined in the OGE regulations. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) | Abdisalam Wilwal et. al. v. Chad A. Wolf et. al. |
$ 110,000
|
REDACTED | Plaintiffs, a family of six, sued a number of Department of Homeland Security agency heads in their official capacities for violations of the United States Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act and the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Paintiffs alleged that U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, engaged in unlawful searches and seizures at the border, when entering the United States from Canada. | Settlement Agreement. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Justice | U.S. Marshals Service (subcomponent of DOJ) and U.S. Department... | Western States Center, Inc., et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. |
$ 144,043
|
Attorneys for Western States Center, Inc., First Unitarian Church of Portland, Oregon, Sara D. Eddie, Representative Janelle S Bynum, and Representative Karin A. Power | Plaintiffs were granted a preliminary injunction on First Amendment grounds related to protest activity around the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon, which was vacated 1.5 weeks later. They had asserted retaliatory intent by the administration. The case was later dismissed on mootness grounds after the administration changed. | The judge found that tweets and public statements from President Donald Trump and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf supported an inference that the government's law enforcement activities were conducted with retaliatory intent. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Fish and Wildlife Service | Rocky Mountain Wild, San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Wilderness Work (Wolf Creek) |
$ 137,500
|
Travis Stills and Matthew Sandler | Plaintiffs sued the USFS and FWS for a land exhanged alleging NEPA, ESA, APA, and NFMA claims. Plaintiffs alleged a violation under ESA section 7 for the consultation on Canada lynx. The court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs and the land exhange with the applicants was unwound. The USFS granted applicants access under ANILCA and the Plaintiffs sued again. The USFS and FWS settled the fees. | The court ruled against the USFS and FWS on ESA and NEPA claims. The US dismissed its appeal and the USFS selected a different action. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Fish and Wildlife Service | Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cooley |
$ 124,000
|
Public Interest Defense Center, P.C. | Plaintiffs raised claims under NEPA and the APA. Plaintiffs alleged violation of the APA by: (1) unreasonably delaying publication of a final rule following the 2001 proposal to rescind the 10(j) rule; or, alternatively (2) failing to comply with the 2000 experimental population rule and ROD by restoring grizzly bears to the Bitterroot Ecosystem. Plaintiffs also alleged that Defendants violated NEPA by failing to supplement the 2000 EIS based on a change in implementation of the chosen alternative and changed factual circumstances (i.e., the presence of dispersing grizzly bears within the Bitterroot). | The court granted summary judgment in Plaintiffs' favor on their NEPA claim and ordered Federal Defendants to propose a timeline for completing a supplemental EIS and a new ROD. | Show |