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 Cascadia Wildlands et al. v. BLM
$ 195,000
Charles Tebbutt Plaintiffs alleged violations of NEPA and FLPMA in BLM's approval of the Pedal Power timber sale in the Northwest Oregon District, BLM. Plaintiffs alleged BLM did not correct deficiencies found by the court in Pedal Power I, and violated FLPMA by conducting timber harvest within the designated Recreation Management Zone (RMZ), and that BLM violated NEPA by 1) proceeding under an unreasonably narrow Purpose & Need statement, 2) failing to consider an adequate range of alternatives, 3) failing to take a hard look at wildfire risk and effects to recreation. BLM failed to comply with the court's instructions in Pedal Power I regarding protection of the Recreation Management Zone on either side of a proposed mountain bike trail within the timber sale units. Show
Other Agency Environmental Protection Agency Northwest Environmental Advocates v. EPA
$ 193,320
Earthrise Law Center APA claims alleging EPA's denial of a rulemaking petition to promulgate aquatic life criteria for the state of Washington was arbitrary and capricious Court order on motion for summary judgment Show
U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, et al. v. Granholm, et al.
$ 191,331
Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, Nuclear Watch New Mexico, Ralph Hutchinson, Ed Sullivan, Jack Carl Hoefer, and Linda Ewald Plaintiffs alleged (1) violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act, for failure to evaluate the Y-12 Nuclear Security Complex (Y-12) Modernization Plan, the Extended Life Program and the reduced-scope Uranium Processing Facility in a new or supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), (2) the NEPA performed was insufficient for certain activities that relied upon the use of “categorical exclusions” and failed to properly analyze information presented in a USGS 2014 seismic hazards maps. The court ruled that some of the categorical exclusions were deficient and remanded the case to perform further NEPA analysis related to seismic hazards at Y-12. Settlement agreement Show
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Genus Medical Technologies, LLC v. FDA
$ 191,190
Genus Medical Technologies, LLC Plaintiff claimed that the government’s position was not substantially justified in underlying litigation regarding classification of contrast agents as medical devices or drugs. Plaintiff presented a fee demand for $382,286. The matter was settled for $191,190 without Plaintiff filing for fees in court. The settlement documents acknowledge that settlement is to resolve Plaintiff’s claim for fees under EAJA, but the settlement agreement specifically disclaims any admission by the government “as to any issue of law or fact relating to any liability for fees, expenses, or costs pursuant to any applicable federal statute, or as an indication that the government’s position or conduct in or before this litigation lacked substantial justification or otherwise was inappropriate.” Settlement to resolve Plaintiff Genus Medical Technologies, LLC’s (“Genus Medical”) claim for attorney’s fees and other expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), without litigation.  The Court made no finding with respect to the settlement and did not enter the settlement agreement on the docket Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Environmental Protection Information Center v. Carlson et al
$ 191,000
Rene P. Voss and Matt Kenna Violated NEPA by approving the Ranch Fore Roadside Fire Project. The FS will not proceed with the following previously-approved commercial timber sales: Bartlett Roadside Fire Salvage; Deer Valley Roadside Fire Salvage;M3 Roadside Fire Salvage;M5-Pacific Roadside Fire Salvage; M10 West Roadside Fire Salvage; or Pine Mountain Roadside Fire Salvage. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) REDACTED v. Nielsen
$ 190,719
REDACTED, REDACTED, and Immigrant Defenders Law Center APA and U.S. Constitutional Violations The court concluded that civil immigration detainees should not be housed in prisons for convicted criminals. Show
U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Rodriguez-Castillo v. Nielsen, et al.
$ 190,718
Gustavo Rodriquez Castillo, Gabriela M. Lopez, Immigrant Defenders Law Center This case challenged the detention of immigration detainees at the Federal Correctional Institution at Victorville, California. Plaintiffs claimed a denial of attorney access violated their due process and First Amendment rights, and that Defendants’ policies regarding access to attorneys violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court ruled that the Defendants’ assertion that confining detainees at a facility for convicted criminals complicated access to counsel does not justify Defendants’ position. Show
Other Agency Environmental Protection Agency League of United Latin American Citizens, et al. v. Regan
$ 190,000
Earthjustice Challenge to EPA's denial of petition seeking revocation of chlorpyrifos tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Ninth Circuit vacated EPA's denial and remanded EPA to revoke or modify tolerances Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security USCIS Doe v. Mayorkas
$ 188,792
REDACTED Challenges discretionary denials of Lautenberg Iranian refugees based on undisclosed information. Settlement-stipulation of the parties Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) ITServe Alliance, Inc. v. USCIS
$ 187,000
REDACTED Challenge to change in H1B rule resulting in the denial of multiple H1B petitions. EAJA claim was settled. Show
U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Oceana, Inc. v. Raimondo, et al.
$ 180,000
Oceana, Inc. An environmental group supplemented its original challenge to the 2008 Biological Opinion on the effects of the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery on loggerhead sea turtles protected under the Endangered Species Act by challenging the 2012 Opinion. With regard to both Opinions, the group alleges the agency: (1) misinterpreted the regulatory definition of "jeopardize the continued existence [of listed species];" (2) failed to consider the group's comments; and (3) failed to require adequate monitoring of incidental take of sea turtles in scallop dredge and trawl gear. Settlement Agreement for attorneys fees and costs Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Justice DOJ Office of Inspector General and Civil Division, DHS U.S. Cit... Xue Lu, Jie Hao v. United States
$ 179,500
Jie Hao Claim for attorneys’ fees based on findings of bad faith; 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b) Settlement Agreement Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency In the Matter of Farm Service Agency
$ 178,850
Null Challenge to Wetland determination Applicants’ application meets EAJA requirements. Applicants prevailed over the Department. The Department’s position in the underlying NAD appeal was not substantially justified. Applicant has not unduly or unreasonably delayed or protracted the proceedings.There are no special circumstances that would make the award of fees unjust. Show
Other Agency Environmental Protection Agency Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. EPA, et al.
$ 175,000
Center for Biological Diversity; Center for Food Safety Challenge under FIFRA and the Endangered Species Act to EPA's 2020 approval of registrations for products contain the new active ingredient inpyrfluxam Settlement Agreement Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management WildEarth Guardians, Grand Canyon Trust v. Haaland (D. Utah)
$ 175,000
Aaron Paul The plaintiffs allege that the agencies failed to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of the lease, failed to analyze the climate impacts of similar and cumulative actions, failed to supplement the environmental impact statement, and failed to demonstrate that leasing is in the public interest. The case involved risk of an unfavorable judgment against the agencies and the parties agreed to settle it. Show
Viewing 15 of 73710 results