EAJA Awards
| Agency | Agency subcomponent | Name | Award date | Award amount | Awardees | Claims description | Finding basis | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Farm Production and Conservation | Ackerman Bros. Farms, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture |
$ 133,092
|
Ackerman Brothers Farms, LLC | APA | Null | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | OGC/PHD | Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho; 18cv00055 |
$ 133,000
|
Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and Hawaiian Islands. | Plaintiffs challenged HHS’s restructuring of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program via the 2018 Tier 1 and Tier 2 Funding Opportunity Announcements. | Settlement agreement between the parties—no admissions as to any entitlement for fees | 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 Justice | Executive Office for Immigration Review | New York Legal Assistance Group, et al. v. Board of Immigration Appeals |
$ 125,980
|
Public Citizen Litigation Group (Public Citizen) | FOIA | Settlement agreement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Idaho Conservation League et al v. U.S. Forest Service |
$ 125,000
|
Bryan Hurlbutt, Laurence Lucas, Roger Flynn | Violations of inadequate EA/FONSI and violations to prepare and EIS. Violations to minimize Imacys. Failure to comply with NFMA regulations and the Targhee Forest Plan. Violations of inadequate EA/FONSI and violations to prepare and EIS | Court found that the Forest Service violated NEPA, NFMA, and the Organic Act by failing to adequately consider (1) the groundwater of Dog Bone ridge, and (2) how that groundwater from Dog Bone Ridge will impact the Yellowstone cutthroat trout in Corral Creek. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Defense | Department of the Navy | KGJJ Engineering Solutions, LLC v DON |
$ 124,547
|
KGJJ Engineering Solutions, LLC | EAJA Attorney Fees & Related Litigation Expenses | Settlement Agreement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Cowpasture River Association, Highlanders for Responsible Development, Shenandoah Valley Battfields Foundation, Shenandoah Valley Network, Sierra Club, Virginia Wilderness Committee and Wild Virginia, Inc. v. Forest Service, Kathlee Atkinson and Ken Arney |
$ 124,500
|
Austin D. Gerken and Amelia Y. Burnette | Petitioning the Court to review the Atlantic Coast Pipeline Record of Decision and the “Special User Permit issued to Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC Monongahela and George Washington | The Court found that the Forest Service failed to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of the Atlantic Cast Pipeline project. The Court also found that the Forest Service failed to demonstrate that the Atlantic Cast Pipeline project needs could not be reasonably met on non-national forest land. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) | Cook Inletkeeper, et al., v. Raimondo, et al. |
$ 124,300
|
Center for Biological Diversity; Cook Inletkeeper | Plaintiffs challenge NMFS's incidental take regulations authorizing the oil and gas company Hilcorp Alaska to take eleven species of marine mammals in Cook Inlet, Alaska over a five-year period and NMFS's biological opinion analyzing the effects on ESA-listed species from the issuance of the regulations. Plaintiffs contend that the incidental take regulation promulgated by NMFS is arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of the MMPA, ESA, and NEPA. | Settlement Agreement for attorneys fees and costs | 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 | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Land Management (BLM) | Triumvirate LLC v. Zinke et al. |
$ 123,488
|
Lewis Bess Williams & Weese PC | Plaintiffs alleged Defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act ("FLPMA"), and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). | District court found that defendants violated NEPA and the APA. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Rural Development | Kayla Estes |
$ 122,713
|
Kayla Estes | EEOC | Null | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service | Native Ecosystems Council, Alliance for the Wild Rockies |
$ 122,000
|
Rebecca K. Smith and Timothy M. Bechtold | 1) Claims the Forest Service's representations and/or omissions in the EIS regarding road density and elk habitat violate NEPA, 2) Forest Service failed to disclose the decrease in active goshawk nesting territories to the public in the EIS, and failed to comply with Forest Plan requirement to conduct an evaluation report if active nests decline by 10% in a year, and 3) Claims Forest Service's representations and/or omissions in the EIS regarding tree cutting in an Inventoried Roadless Area violate the 2001 Roadless Rule. | On 4/4/2022, the District Court of Montana granted the plaintiffs' motion for Summary Judgment as to Claim 1 (all portions except illegal roads portion) and Claim 5. The project is remanded back to the Forest and enjoined pending Agency compliance with both NFMA and NEPA. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Null | Cascade Forest Conservancy v. Heppler |
$ 120,000
|
Cascade Forest Conservancy | NEPA | Null | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture | Forest Service (USFS) | Native Ecosystem Council, Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Leanne Martin, U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
$ 120,000
|
Native Ecosystem Council, Alliance for the Wild Rockies | NEPA, NFMA, ESA | Settlement | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Land Management | Cascade Forest Conservancy v. Heppler |
$ 120,000
|
Tom Buchele | Plaintiff challenged decisions by the BLM and the USFS to grant Ascot Resources Ltd. hardrock mineral prospecting permits for federal lands near the Mt. St. Helens National Volcanic Monument. Plaintiff alleged violations of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946, the NEPA, the APA, and FOIA. Plaintiff filed an application for $272,613 in EAJA fees on April 29, 2022. | The district court found in favor of Plaintiff on its National Environmental Policy Act claim. Plaintiff had already prevailed against the BLM on the same NEPA claim in prior litigation. | Show |