Learn more about the EAJA

EAJA Awards

Filters
Agency Agency subcomponent Name Award date Award amount Awardees Claims description Finding basis Actions
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Rocky Mountain Helium v. United States
$ 519,000
Bryant Banes of Neel, Hopper, and Banes. Plaintiff originally claimed damages between $5 and $9 million. Prior to the damages phase of the trial, the parties entered mediation and settled the case. The Court found that the BLM breached a 2008 settlement agreement with Rocky Mountain Helium. 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 Labor ETA - Office of Foreign Labor Certification Williams v. Walsh
$ 110,221
Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc., Edward Tuddenham, Justice at Work, and North Carolina Justice Center That OFLC’s 2015 H-2B Wage Rule was procedurally and substantial invalid under the APA and that OFLC’s acceptance of the 2021 Crawfish Wage Survey was improper. The court found that the 2015 wage rule was improperly promulgated and that acceptance of the wage survey was improper. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Wang v. Barr
$ 19,550
REDACTED Petition for review of BIA decision affirming IJ denial of asylum and CAT based on an adverse credibility finding, and alternatively, that he failed to meet his burden of proof. The Court found that substantial evidence did not support either inconsistency as a ground for an adverse credibility determination. The court found that petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity to explain the apparent date discrepancy regarding his address in China, and the BIA should not have relied upon that. The case was remanded to BIA rendering petitioner a prevailing party. EAJA claim was settled. Show
Other Agency Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Chemical Safety and Po... FRIENDS OF ANIMALS v. PRUITT, et al.
$ 87,000
Friends of Animals Plaintiffs challenged EPA's 2016 denial of their 2015 petition to initiate special review for a horse contraceptive pesticide product (Zona-Stat-H), as arbitrary and capricious. The court found that EPA’s petition denial was arbitrary and capricious in that it did not adequately respond to Plaintiff’s allegations based on 40 CFR 154.7(a)(6), which permits SR if the pesticide “[m]ay otherwise pose a risk to humans or to the environment which is of sufficient magnitude to merit” SR. The court also found it impermissible for EPA to defer to wild horse managers to determine whether and when to use Zona-Stat-H as a basis for considering the criteria in 40 CFR 154.7(a)(6), and remanded the case back to EPA. Show
Other Agency National Archives and Records Administration CREW v NARA
$ 60,779
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington CREW challenged NARA's approval of an ICE records schedule under the Administrative Procedures Act. The Court found that Defendant's positions were not substantially justified. Show
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office of Immigration Review Mendez-Morales v. Barr
$ 6,500
Jose Luis Eduardo Mendez-Morales The petitioner claimed that the Agency erred in concluding that he did not meet his burden to establish eligibility for a particular application that he filed.  He argued that the record revealed multiple potential bases for establishing eligibility and, in light of intervening case law, the Court should remand for further consideration.  He also highlighted problems with the transcript of expert witness testimony. The Court found multiple bases for potential eligibility that needed to be considered in light of its intervening precedential case law.  The Court also noted that the “exceptionally poor quality” of the transcript of the expert’s testimony made the Court’s review impossible and ordered the Agency to re-transcribe that testimony before re-examining the petitioner’s application. Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Rocky Mountain Wild v. Bernhardt
$ 64,000
Earthjustice Petitioners challenged a BLM lease sale decision; they alleged NEPA and FLPMA violations related to air quality (ozone in particular), greenhouse gases and climate change, and lands with wilderness characteristics. The Court finds that the BLM’s 2018 leasing decision violated NEPA and the APA. Show
U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service (NPS) In Re Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
$ 7,329
Paula Dinerstein Plaintiffs filed a mandamus petition in the DC Circuit pursuant to the FAA's direct review statute, contending that the NPS and the FAA violated the National Parks Air Tour Management Act by failing to complete legally required air tour management plans or voluntary agreements for 23 national parks for which such plans or agreements were required in the 20 years since the law had been enactdd. The court granted the mandamus petition and ordered the agencies to file a schedule for completing the plans or agreements for the 23 parks within 2 years of August 31, 2020. The Court entered mandamus relief against the FAA and NPS finding that the agencies had failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty to comply with the National Parks Air Tour Management Act for 23 national parks for 20 years. Show
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Historic Bridge Foundation v. Chao
$ 86,391
Friends of the Frank J. Wood Bridge/ Historic Bridge Foundation Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated Section 4(f)of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 by failing to select a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, i.e., rehabilitation. In furtherance of the latter, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ selection was based on inaccurate and inconsistent data regarding the relative costs of rehabilitation versus building a new bridge. In addition, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ rejection of Rehabilitation Alternative 3 based on the "Service life Cycle" estimated service life and construction costs of “extraordinary magnitudes” is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and lacks support in the record. The Court disagreed with all but one of Plaintiffs (Appellant) arguments. The Court found that the record adequately supports the construction and maintenance cost attributed to each alternative. Regarding the choice of cost estimate methodology, however, the Court found that FHWA and MaineDOT did not provide a basis for forgoing the generally accepted Life Cycle Cost Analysis methodology for the Service Life Cycle Estimate methodology, which is relatively unknown. Show
U.S. Department of Education Null Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. v. Devos et al.
$ 105,000
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. Plaintiff, Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, requested attorneys' fees and costs under the EAJA relating to successfully filing a complaint challenging the Department of Education's issuance of a final rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court did not make a finding that the agency's position was "not substantially justified" under the EAJA as there was no court award for fees/costs in this case. Rather, the parties agreed to a settlement amount following the court's dismissal without prejudice of the Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs for the purpose of allowing the parties to engage in settlement discussions. Show
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services OGC/R01 Jonathan Bloom v. Burwell, 5:16-cv-00121-gwc (D.Vt. 2016)
$ 118,829
Plaintiff's Counsel NOTE: This is an estimate of an EAJA award based on the Court's order, dated January 16, 2019, that Plaintiff was entitled to fees under EAJA. The Court is allowing the government to brief the issue of reasonableness and make line-by-line objections to the fee requests submitted by plaintiff's attorneys. However, bceause a Second Circuit appeal is also pending in this case, the parties agreed to stay briefing on the issue of reasonableness until the Second Circuit case is decided. The Court determined that the Secretary's litigation position was not substantially justified. The Court determined that Attorney Debra Parrish was entitled to a special factor enhancement as a result of her particular experience with cases involving requests by Medicare beneficiaries for coverage of continuous glucose monitors. On the other hand, the Court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that the other members of his legal team were entitled to an enhanced fee rate. The Court also accepted the Secretary’s argument that EAJA fees should not be awarded for issues litigated and decided in the Secretary’s favor. The Court then provided the parties with a limited opportunity for supplemental briefing, in order to address what should be a reasonable award of fees in this matter. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Sanchez v. Barr
$ 8,000
REDACTED Petition for review of BIA decision denying petitioners' untimely request for reopening based on an allegation of ineffective assistance of former counsel. Petitioners claimed their former attorneys were ineffective because those attorneys told them not to file for asylum. The former attorneys filed an application for cancellation of removal that was denied. The Court determined that the Board abused its discretion in denying Petitioners' motion to reopen as untimely. The Court explained that the Board failed to consider Petitioners' contentions that the notario and attorney who prepared their 2003 asylum and cancellation of removal applications provided false information in the applications and failed to solicit information concerning the asylum claim. 755 F. App'x at 668 (citing Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005)). The Board's failure to address those contentions, the Court stated, "undermines its grounds for rejecting equitable tolling of the filing deadline because the BIA's analysis relies on dates and other information in those applications that petitioners allege were falsely provided due to the ineffective assistance." Id. The Court further determined that the Board failed to explain its conclusion that Petitioners, "having alleged that the female petitioner was persecuted by a local political figure, and was rebuffed when she sought assistant from local authorities, did not present a colorable asylum claim." Id. (citing Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1027 (9th Cir. 2004) (in assessing whether a petitioner was prejudiced by incompetent counsel, this court "must consider the underlying merits of the case to come to a tentative conclusion as to whether [the petitioner's] claim, if properly presented, would be viable")Remanded to BIA. EAJA claim was settled. Show
Other Agency Federal Election Commission (FEC) Pursuing America's Greatness v. Federal Election Commission
$ 200,549
Pursuing America's Greatness First Amendment challenge against 11 C.F.R. § 102.14(a), an FEC regulation that prohibited the use of the names of federal candidates by unauthorized political committees in any name under which a committee conducts activities, unless the name clearly and unambiguously shows opposition to the named candidate under 11 C.F.R. § 102.14(b)(3). In addition, a claim that the regulation violated the Administrative Procedure Act as applied. The court concluded the regulation was a content-based speech restriction that was not narrowly tailored. Show
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services OGC/CMSD 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
Viewing 15 of 73710 results