EAJA Awards
| Agency | Agency subcomponent | Name | Award date | Award amount | Awardees | Claims description | Finding basis | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Crosby v. Miller, et al |
$ 17,036
|
REDACTED | Challenge to a naturalization denial. | The Court granted the Petition and remanded to USCIS "with instructions to adjudge that plaintiff was eligible for naturalization, and that her application should be granted. EAJA claim was settled. | 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) | Native Ecosystems Council and Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. BLM |
$ 100,000
|
Akland Law Firm, PLLC | Complaint alleging that Defendants violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act in issuing the Decision Record, Iron Mask Planning Area Environmental Assessment, Decision Record for Vegetation and Riparian Treatments, Iron Mask Planning Area Environmental Assessment, and Final Grazing Decision and Response to Protest - Indian Creek Forage Reserve. | The court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment in part finding that BLM's cumulative impacts analysis did not comply with NEPA. The court remanded the matter for the BLM to conduct supplemental NEPA. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Zabaleta v. Nielsen, et al |
$ 20,000
|
REDACTED | Challenge to adoption of new SIJ Policy resulting in denial of plaintiff's SIJ applications. | The Court granted plaintiff's MSJ rendering plaintiff a prevailing party. EAJA claim was settled and split between three payees. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Zabaleta v. Nielsen, et al |
$ 25,000
|
REDACTED | Challenge to adoption of new SIJ Policy resulting in denial of plaintiff's SIJ applications. | The Court granted plaintiff's MSJ rendering plaintiff a prevailing party. EAJA claim was settled and split between three payees. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Zabaleta v. Nielsen, et al |
$ 15,000
|
REDACTED | Challenge to adoption of new SIJ Policy resulting in denial of plaintiff's SIJ applications. | The Court granted plaintiff's MSJ rendering plaintiff a prevailing party. EAJA claim was settled and split between three payees. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Land Management | Center for Biological Diversity v. BLM |
$ 300,000
|
EarthJustice | Plaintiffs brought various claims under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4332 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. | The court granted in part an denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoined the project. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) | Chaparro Navarro, et al v. DHS, et al |
$ 60,000
|
REDACTED | Challenge to the revocation of an approved Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status. | The Court found that USCIS's revocation was arbitrary and capricious because it was years after approval and USCIS did not explain why the agency took a second look at the filing. EAJA claim was settled. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | USCIS | Solis, et al. v. Cissna |
$ 70,000
|
REDACTED | APA litigation challenging delayed U visa adjudication and EAD approval. | The court found that there was no substantial evidence presented that the delay in adjudicating Plaintiffs’ eligibility for the waiting list is reasonable. Plaintiff was the prevailing party whose position was substantially justified. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Customs and Border Protection | Jane Doe v. Mayorkas |
$ 3,832,052
|
REDACTED | This case is a class action lawsuit disputing conditions of detention in Tucson Sector Border Patrol facilities on various Constitutional grounds. | The Court found that the reasonable time from book-in at a Tucson Sector Border Patrol station to “processing complete” is no longer than 48 hours. As for this duration of time, Defendants have established that the challenged conditions of confinement, separately and aggregately, are not excessive in relation to the legitimate government interests of Tucson Sector Border Patrol's 24-7 operations or the penological interests involved in Plaintiffs' civil detention in immigration facilities. However, these conditions violate the Fifth Amendment when individuals who are "processing complete" are held beyond 48 hours, at which point CBP must provide conditions of confinement that meet basic human needs for sleeping in a bed with a blanket, a shower, food that meets acceptable dietary standards, potable water, and medical assessments performed by a medical professional. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of the Interior | Bureau of Ocean Energy Management | Environmental Defense Center et al. v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management et al. |
$ 383,000
|
Environmental Defense Center; Center for Biological Diversity | Challenge to approvals of permits to drill and modify for well stimulation treatments, alleging violations of NEPA, ESA, and Coastal Zone Management Act. This represents BOEM's payment of 1/3 of settlement. A separate entry represents BSEE's payment of 1/3 of settlement. As noted - Judgment Fund paid 1/3 of settlement, related to ESA claim. | The court found that the programmatic environmental assessment failed to take the required "hard look" under NEPA because the it relied on faulty assumptions about the frequency of well stimulation treatments and the mitigating impacts of an EPA clean water act permit, and because it failed to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. It also found that the agencies' decision not to prepare an EIS was arbitrary and capricious in light of the "largely unexplored" impacts of offshore fracking and because the record demonstrated "substantial questions relating to several significance factors about the effects of well stimulation treatments." | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Justice | Null | United States v. 269 Acres, More or Less, Located in Beaufort County, South Carolina |
$ 84,757
|
William D. Trask, Jr. | The United States filed this case in 2016 to impose a permanent restrictive easement over 269.22 acres of land located in Beaufort, South Carolina, which the landowners had owned in fee simple since 1955. The easement restricts land development in the flight path of jets in and out of the adjacent U.S. Marine Corps Air Station. | The court found that the government’s pre-litigation actions and litigation positions were not substantially justified because it had taken three different stances on valuation for determination of just compensation for the property. | Show | |
| U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs | Null | Superior Optical Labs, Inc. v. The United States |
$ 44,679
|
Superior Optical Labs, Inc. | Superior Optical protested the Government's decision to move requirements that are currently set-aside for veteran-owned small businesses back to the federal AbilityOne program. | The Court found that the Government's litigation position was not reasonable because it contradicted the Consistency Act and its own pre-litigation position. | 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 | |
| Other Agency | Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) | Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
$ 136,230
|
Flint Riverkeeper and Chattahoochee Riverkeeper | The fee award arose from the Court's determination that the Commission violated NEPA by failing to calculate and consider the environmental effects of emissions stemming from the end use of the natural gas transported on a FERC-jurisdictional pipeline. | The Court found that the Commission's position that NEPA did not require the calculation and consideration of end use emissions was not substantially justified. | Show |