EAJA Awards
| Agency | Agency subcomponent | Name | Award date | Award amount | Awardees | Claims description | Finding basis | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Division (CMS) | New Hampshire Hospital Association |
$ 296,333
|
New Hampshire Hospital Association (NHHA) | - Plaintiffs challenged a Medicaid policy that was reflected in two FAQs. The district court found that the FAQs should have gone through notice and comment rulemaking and the appellate court agreed. | the Court concluded that NHHA was an eligible party under EAJA, and that Defendants have not satisfied their burden to show that their position was substantially justified. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Asylumworks v. Mayorkas |
$ 280,139
|
REDACTED | Challenge two rules relating to asylum-based employment authorization (Removal of 30-Day Processing Provision for Asylum Applicant-Related Form I–765 Employment Authorization Applications final rule and the Asylum Application, Interview, and Employment Authorization for Applicants final rule) based on lack of authority of the leadership at DHS to issue the rules because of violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. | Court found that the plaintiffs were prevaling parties and that the government failed to show substantial justification. No enhanced fees allowed, but reasonable fees awarded. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Land Management (BLM) | Western Watersheds Project v. Zinke (sage-grouse RMP) |
$ 280,000
|
Advocates for the West | Complaint alleging BLM did not adequately protect the sage grouse and challenged 16 Resource Management Plans. | Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement | 350 Montana v. Haaland (D. Mont.) and 50 F.4th 1254 (9th Cir. 2022) |
$ 275,000
|
350 Montana/Shiloh Hernandez | Plaintiff challenged OSMRE approval to expand a coal mine in south-central Montana under NEPA. | OSMRE did not have a strong argument that its position was substantially justified. A panel of the Ninth Circuit held, inter alia, that OSMRE's 2018 FONSI was arbitrary and capricious because OSMRE did not use "science based criteria" to justify its statement that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to the project were not "significant," as that term is used in NEPA. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the district court to determine whether the agency was required to prepare an EIS and whether the mining plan modification should be immediately vacated. Id. at ll77. The 9th Circuit amended its opinion on June 21, 2022 clarifying its instructions on remand. | 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 Veterans Affairs | Null | B. AFGE v. Wilkie & Department of Veterans Affairs; AFGE v. Wilkie |
$ 274,124
|
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) c/o AFGE Legal Rep Fund (amount of deposit: $274,123.90) Amalgamated Bank 275 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10001 Accounting Number: 81019974 Routing Number: 026003379 Caging Code: 490Z5 Tax Identification Number: 53-0025740 | Global Settement based on implementation of EO 13836, 13837 and 13839, which settled the noted civil actions and multiple national and local grievances. | Global Settlement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | OGC Childern, Family and Aging Division | Flores v. Garland |
$ 270,105
|
Flores Counsel; Name on Account: Foundation Trust Account | Description of Claims: On April 24, 2020, at the request of class members’ attorneys, the federal court ordered: (1) that ORR and ICE should continue to make efforts towards prompt and safe release of class members (including allowing for provisional release from ORR facilities if COVID-19 made fingerprinting unavailable); (2) that the Flores Monitor should oversee the conditions at ORR and ICE facilities; and (3) that the ORR and ICE juvenile coordinators should provide interim reports to the court on specified issues. The Government and lawyers for class members have agreed that the Government will pay class members’ attorneys’ fees in the amount of $540,210.40 to compensate them for their work which resulted in the court’s three orders issued on April 24, 2020, May 22, 2020, and June 26, 2020, respectively. | Upon consideration of the parties’ Joint Stipulation To Dismiss EAJA Motion With Prejudice and Proposal Regarding Notice to Flores Class Members Of Settlement (ECF No. 1292), and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement, the Court found: the parties engaged in non-collusive, arm’s-length negotiations to resolve Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“MAF”) [ECF No. 1182]; the settlement requires Defendants to Pay Plaintiffs $540,210.40 in settlement of Plaintiff’s claims and any potential claims for attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and related expenses pursuant to the MAF, and the MAF supports an award of this size; no evidence of collusion between the parties or of Plaintiffs putting their interests in obtaining fees ahead of the interests of the Class; the Notice of the proposed settlement provided to the class satisfied the requirements of FRCP 23(e)(1) and due process; and counsel have received no objections from class members or their family members concerning the proposed settlement agreement. Court Order approving Settlement Agreement filed on 1/25/2023 (ECF No. 1325). | Show | |
| Other Agency | Environmental Protection Agency | Rural Coalition, et al. v. EPA, et al. |
$ 260,000
|
Center for Food Safety | Challenge under FIFRA and the Endangered Species Act to EPA's 2020 Interim Registration Review Decision for glyphosate | Settlement Agreement | Show | |
| Other Agency | Federal Trade Commission | Federal Trade Commission v. Innovative Designs, Inc. |
$ 260,000
|
Innovative Designs, Inc. | Attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs incurred by defendant Innovative Designs, Inc. (IDI) in opposing FTC law enforcement suit alleging deceptive advertising of housing wrap. | Settlement agreement/stipulated dismissal of EAJA motion | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Farm Production and Conservation | Elbert v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture |
$ 258,064
|
Rich Elbert | APA | Null | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Saget v. Biden |
$ 250,000
|
REDACTED | Challenge to the termination of designation of Temporary Protected Status for certain Haitians | Settlement-stipulation of the parties | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) | General Land Office of Texas v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, A-17-CA-00538-SS |
$ 250,000
|
Theodore Hadzi-Antich | Plaintiffs alleged violations of the ESA and APA inconnection with the Service's ESA listing of the golden-cheeked warbler and 90-day finding denying a petition to remove the golden-cheeked warbler from the endangered species list. | 5th Circuit found the Service had not applied the correct standard for evaluating the petition. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Land Management | WildEarth Guardians v. Haaland |
$ 242,500
|
Western Environmental Law Center | In three related lawsuits, Plaintiffs challenged BLM oil and gas lease sales in MT, WY, UT, CO, and NM. They allege that the BLM violated NEPA by failing to (1) analyze direct, indirect, and cumulative GHG emissions of the lease sales and the impacts on climate change; (2) prepare an EIS for GHG emissions that could significantly impact climate; and (3) prepare a programmatic EIS analyzing climate impacts of entire BLM oil and gas leasing program. Plaintiffs seek to vacate the leasing decisions, EAs, and FONSIs and enjoin applications for permit to drill until the BLM prepares a programmatic EIS analysis | the District Court stated “BLM failed to take a ‘hard look’ at GHG emissions from the Wyoming Lease Sales, and therefore the EAs and FONSIs issued for those sales did not comply with NEPA." | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Land Management (BLM) | Western Organizaton of Resource Councils, et al. v. BLM |
$ 238,685
|
Western Environmental Law Center | Plaintiffs challenged Federal Defendants' approval of Resource Management Plans ("RMPs") for two adjacent field offices in the Powder River Basin: the Miles City Field Office in Montana and the Buffalo Field Office in Wyoming. Federal Defendants approved these RMPs, and 10 others, through a single Record of Decision. | Court found that BLM did not have a reasonable range of alternatives for coal lands made available for leasing in Miles City and Buffalo RMPs | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Land Management (BLM) | Sierra Club, et al. v. Bernhardt |
$ 238,000
|
Earthjustice, Western Environmental Law Center, Environmental Law and Policy Center, and Clean Air Task Force | Relates to BLM's reconsideration of the Waste Prevention Rule and a proposed Revision Rule that would rescind certain provisions. | Not Provided | Show |