Learn more about the EAJA

EAJA Awards

Filters
Agency Agency subcomponent Name Award date Award amount Awardees Claims description Finding basis Actions
Other Agency Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, et. al. v. Pruitt
$ 236,363
Earthjustice and Farmworker Justice Plaintiffs alleged that EPA rules delaying the effective date of the pesticide certified applicator rule violated the APA and FIFRA. The district court held that in delaying the effective date of the applicator rule, EPA engaged in substantive rulemaking and was required to comply with the APA, but did not do so. Show
Other Agency Social Security Administration Sylvia Fabelo et al. v. Kijakazi et al.
$ 225,000
NY Legal Asstance Group Adversary proceeding based on alleged violations of SSI payment continuation requirements during certain appeals and waiver requests Settlement Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. USFS Null
$ 225,000
Bricklin & Newman APA, ESA Settlement of EAJA fees portion of case Show
U.S. Department of State Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Homeland Se... Ibrahim v. DHS, et al. (N.D. Cal.)
$ 220,470
Dr. Rahinah Ibrahim (represented by McManis Faulkner) Dr. Ibrahim claimed a violation of her due process rights by being put on the No Fly list. The District Court found that Dr. Ibrahim was incorrectly put on the No Fly list for a brief period of time due to a clerical error. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security DHS/TSA Ibrahim v. DHS
$ 220,029
REDACTED Challenge to non-citizen’s placement on No Fly watch list and rescission of her student visa. Court found the watch list placement was erroneous and that the government’s attempt to defend the error was neither reasonable nor substantially justified.  Parties litigated the extent of fees until 2-Jan-2019 en banc ruling by Ninth Circuit sufficiently narrowed the points of contention to permit resolving the amount of the fees owed by settlement. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Ibrahim v. DHS
$ 220,029
REDACTED Challenge to non-citizen’s placement on No Fly watch list and rescission of her student visa. Court found the watch list placement was erroneous and that the government’s attempt to defend the error was neither reasonable nor substantially justified.  Parties litigated the extent of fees until 2-Jan-2019 en banc ruling by Ninth Circuit sufficiently narrowed the points of contention to permit resolving the amount of the fees owed by settlement. Show
U.S. Department of State Depts of HHS and DHS HIAS, Inc. et al v. Trump et al
$ 218,120
International Refugee Assistance Project; Shearman & Sterling Plaintiffs alleged that Executive Order 13888, requiring state and local consent to refugee resettlement, violated the Refugee Act of 1980. The District Court found that Executive Order 13888 violated the Refugee Act of 1980 and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision. Show
Other Agency Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Water SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER, et al. v. EPA, et al.
$ 214,980
Earthrise Law Center Plaintiffs challenged EPA’s special-case Clean Water Act jurisdictional determination dated March 1, 2019, for the Redwood City Salt Plant site as arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs brought a single claim for relief, challenging EPA’s negative jurisdictional determination under the Clean Water Act for the Redwood City salt ponds and asking this Court to vacate and set aside that decision. The district Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on that claim and denied EPA and intervenors’ motion. In ruling for Plaintiffs, this Court held that EPA had erroneously applied the law and vacated and remanded the jurisdictional determination. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security USCIS A.O., et al., v. Jaddou, et al.
$ 213,348
REDACTED Class action challenging denials of Special Immigrant Juvenile Status Settlement-stipulation of the parties Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Sovereign Inupiat for a Living Arctic v. BLM
$ 213,340
Trustees for Alaska Plaintiffs brought various claims under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4332 et seq., the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq., and the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1533 et seq., challenging Defendants’ decision to approve the Willow Master Development Plan in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. ECF No. 36. Adverse court decision finding NEPA and ESA deficiencies. The court enjoined the project. ECF No. 125. Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Center for Biological Diversity et al v. Leverette et al
$ 210,000
William J. Snaoe, III, Marc D. Fink and Allison N. Melton Failure to consider the cumulative impacts of the prospecting permits along with all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions prior to issuing the prospecting permits. Consider whether the extension of the prospecting permits, and Twin Metals’ Mine Plan of Operations, preference right lease applications, and/or new permit applications are cumulative and/or connected actions that must be considered together. Consider and address relevant new science and information, prior to issuing the prospecting permits. Prepare and environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) prior to issuing the prospecting permits. 1)Failure to consult with the FWS and ensure no jeopardy to listed species and no adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat, prior to issuing the prospecting permits. Specifically, concerning the Canada lynx, gray wolf, and northern long-eared bat. 2) Reinitiate and complete consultation on the ongoing impacts of the hard rock minerals prospecting permits on the Superior National Forest, concerning the gray wolf, northern long-eared bat. 3) The BLM violated its own regulations in issuing the prospecting permits. Specifically, pursuant to the BLM’s regulations, in order to extend a prospecting permit, the BLM must prove that (a) the mining company “explored with reasonable diligence,” and was unable to determine the existence and workability of a valuable deposit covered by their permit, or (b) that the permittee’s failure to perform diligent prospecting activities was due to conditions beyond their control. 43 C.F.R. § 3505.62(a). Failed to comply with NEPA by not conducting an Environmental Assessment. The BLM violated its own regulations in issuing the prospecting permits. Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southeast Alaska Conservation Council et al v. United States Forest Service et al
$ 210,000
Thomas S. Waldo and Olivia Glasscock Failure to determine where within the project area the logging or road construction would take place. The FEIS does not provide site-specific information about the project. Failure to identify resource concerns of the road. The Forest Service did not identify site-specific mitigation measures for the road. Null Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Center for Biological Diversity v. BLM, FWS and U.S. Forest Service
$ 201,000
Center for Biological Diversity Plaintiffs challenged BLM’s approval of, and the U.S. Forest Service’s consent to, issuance of 36 oil and gas leases in the Wayne Nat'l Forest. They alleged various violations of NEPA and the ESA by BLM and FS, and an ESA violation by all 3 agencies (BLM, FS, FWS). On Mar. 8, 2021, the court issued a remedy order remanding the leasing decisions to BLM for additional NEPA analysis ; and (2) the court enjoined certain oil and gas activities until the further NEPA analysis is completed. The court rejected the ESA claims and found only NEPA violations, concluding BLM and FS had failed to adequately analyze impacts on air quality, on the Indiana bat, and on surface water resources. 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 Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) Wilderness Watch, Friends of the Clearwter, ad Western Watersheds Project v. Sonny Perdue, Tom Tidwell, Nora Rasure, Charles Mark
$ 196,000
Wilderness Watch NEPA, Wilderness Act Settlement Show
Viewing 15 of 73710 results