EAJA Awards

Agency Agency subcomponent Name Award date Award amount Awardees Claims description Finding basis Actions
U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau (CEN) New York Immigration Coalition, et al. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, et al.
$ 2,550,000
New York Immigration Coalition; Casa de Maryland; American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; ADC Research Institute; Make The Road New York Reinstatement of decennial census question not in accordance with law Settlement Agreement for attorneys fees at significant discount from original fee claims with costs paid by Department of Justice Show
U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau (CEN) Robyn Kravitz, et al. v. U.S. Dept of Commerce, et al.
$ 2,200,000
Diana Alexander; Lauren Rachel Berman; Sarah Bryan; Alejandro Chavez; Virginia Garcia; Michael Kagan; Robyn Kravitz; Michael Kravitz; Yamile Labori; Lazara Yoelvis Magadan; Richard McCune; Jose Moreno; Catherine Nwosu; Nnabugwu Nwosu; Linda Rivas; T. Carter Ross; Martha Sanchez; Sonia Casarez Shafer; Joanne Wilson Reinstatement of decennial census question not in accordance with law Settlement Agreement for attorneys fees at significant discount from original fee claims with costs paid by Department of Justice Show
U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau (CEN) La Union Del Pueblo Entero, et al. v. Wilbur L. Ross, et al.
$ 1,318,000
La Union Del Pueblo Entero; Texas Senat Hispanic Caucus; Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus; Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; California Latino Legislative Caucus; Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights; Delores Huerta Foundation; Mi Familia Vota Education Fund; somos Un Pueblo Unido; Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials; Labor Council for Latin American Advancement; Promise Arizona; El Pueblo, Inc.; Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus; Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago; Asian Services in Action, Inc.; Minkwon Center for Community Action Inc.; Chelsea Colaborative; Chicanos Por La Causa; Latino Community Fund of Washington; Arizona Legislative Caucus; California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus; California Legislative Black Caucus; OCA-Greater Houston; Friendly House; Four Directions, Inc.; Juanita Valdez-Cox; Gene Wu; Mia Gregerson; Cindy Ryu; Sharon Tomiko Santos; Raj Mukherji; Oliver Semans, Sr. Reinstatement of decennial census question not in accordance with law Settlement Agreement for attorneys fees at significant discount from original fee claims with costs paid by Department of Justice Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Dine Citizens Against Ruining the Environment v. Bernhardt
$ 791,710
Kyle Tisdel Plaintiffs alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S. C. §§ 4321 et seq., and its implementing regulations, made reviewable pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §701 et seq. Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction on May 11, 2015. The Tenth Circuit vacated certain oil and gas drilling decisions of the BLM for failure to comply with NEPA. Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Red Wolf Coalition, et al. v. FWS
$ 620,000
Southern Environmental Law Center Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this matter alleging the Service violated the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) in connection with its management of the nonessential experimental population of red wolves in eastern North Carolina. The Judge granted Plaintiffs' MSJ finding that the FWS violated sections 4, 7 and 9 of the ESA as regarded its Red Wolf Non-Essential Experimental Population 10(j) rule. Show
U.S. Department of Energy Null Backcountry Against Dumps v. Perry
$ 400,000
Backcountry Against Dumps, Donna Tisdale Plaintiffs challenged DOE's issuance of a Presidential permit to Energia Sierra Juarez to contruct and operate a transmission line in San Diego County, CA, that would bring wind power from Mexico into the United States. Plaintiffs alleged that DOE's issuance of the permit was carried out in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Null 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
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Western Watersheds Project v. Zinke (sage-grouse RMP)
$ 280,000
Advocates for the West Complaint alleging BLM did not adequately protect the sage grouse and challenged 16 Resource Management Plans. Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment Show
Other Agency U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) Citizant, Inc. v The United States and Halvik Corp.
$ 275,000
Citizant, Inc. Protest of a procurement award, alleging that agency misevaluated multiple awardees' offers and as a result some awards were improper, and plaintiff was prejudiced.  Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 68(b)(6) Offer of Judgment on Motion for EAJA fees and costs. Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Western Organizaton of Resource Councils, et al. v. BLM
$ 238,685
Western Environmental Law Center Plaintiffs challenged Federal Defendants' approval of Resource Management Plans ("RMPs") for two adjacent field offices in the Powder River Basin: the Miles City Field Office in Montana and the Buffalo Field Office in Wyoming. Federal Defendants approved these RMPs, and 10 others, through a single Record of Decision. Court found that BLM did not have a reasonable range of alternatives for coal lands made available for leasing in Miles City and Buffalo RMPs Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Sierra Club, et al. v. Bernhardt
$ 238,000
Earthjustice, Western Environmental Law Center, Environmental Law and Policy Center, and Clean Air Task Force Relates to BLM's reconsideration of the Waste Prevention Rule and a proposed Revision Rule that would rescind certain provisions. Not Provided Show
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
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 the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Savage (E. Reservoir)
$ 163,234
Rebecca Smith and Tim Bechtold Ninth Circuit sided with Plaintiff holding that the Federal Defendents acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to first assess the baseline road mileage within the BORZ, in violation of NFMA. Court found the plaintiffs prevailed under EAJA and ESA Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) American Stewards of Liberty; Charles Shell; Cheryl Shell; Walter Sidney Shell Management Trust; Kathryn Heidemann; Robert V. Harrison, Sr. v. DOI
$ 160,000
Paul S. Weiland, Nossaman LLP Plaintiffs alleged the FWS violated the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) in connection with the Service’s negative 90-day finding, 80 Fed. Reg. 30,990 (June 1, 2015), which found Plaintiffs’ 2014 petition requesting removal of the Bone Cave harvestman from the federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the ESA did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that delisting may be warranted. Court finding that agency decision was arbitrary and capricious Show