EAJA Awards

Agency Agency subcomponent Name Award date Award amount Awardees Claims description Finding basis Actions
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) REDACTED v. Moore Null REDACTED Writ of mandamus Null Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service David A. Herr and Pamela F. Herr vs United States Forest Service Null
$ 2,539
Mountain States Legal Foundation Wilderness Act & MWA Judgment Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture Risk Management Agency (RMA) In the matter of Risk Management Agency
$ 40,581
Null Whole Farm Revenue Protection Award Show
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) Martin v. Barr
$ 2,108
Michael Martin, Legal Aid Society Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals committed legal error when it dismissed Mr. Martin’s appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1). Settlement agreement Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Epp v. NRCS
$ 14,117
Richard Epp Wetlands determination Award Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (FSA) In the matter of Farm Service Agency
$ 27,249
Null Wetlands determination Award Show
U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) In the matter of Natural Resources Conservation Service
$ 65,865
Null Wetlands determination Award Show
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Food Safety v. Azar
$ 14,888
Center for Food Safety and Center for Environmental Health (Plaintiffs) Unreasonable delay Settlement, but no finding that government position was not substantially justified Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Native Ecosystems Coucil v. BLM
$ 70,000
Thomas Woodbury This matter involves four separate Environmental Assessments with Findings of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI), as well as four separate decisions (Decision, or collectively the Challenged Decisions) completed by the BLM Dillon Field Office in connection with 4 watersheds. All of the Challenged Decisions provided for vegetation treatments targeting reduction of conifer encroachment in various areas within each watershed. Plaintiff filed an action in the District of Montana, seeking in part to have the BLM enjoined from conducting any activities in connection with the Challenged Decisions. The Plaintiff asserted that the BLM violated NEPA and FLPMA. The judge entered an order granting partial summary judgment in favor of BLM on all claims except one FLPMA claim in connection with a single watershed. The court determined that the BLM failed to supplement one EA to incorporate additional analysis as required by the applicable ARMPA for sage grouse. 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
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 the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State of Alaska
$ 400
State of Alaska The State of Alaska filed a Quiet Title Act claim over the navigability of the upper Knik River. After the complaint was filed, BLM completed a field investigation showing a navigable channel, resulting in the United States filing a Quiet Title Act disclaimer of interest. N/A - award of costs only Show
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Hector Garza dba Trinity Transports, US DOT No. 2131513
$ 1,800
Hector Garza dba Trinity Transports The Notice of Claim alleged that the Applicant violated: 1) 49 C.F.R. § 173.24(b)(1) by offering or transporting hazardous materials in a package that had an identifiable release of haardous materials to the environment; 2) 49 C.F.R. § 177.801 by using an unauthorized tank to transport Anhydrous Ammonia 2.2, a hazardous material in interstate commerce; and 3) 49 C.F.R. § 385.403 by transporting Anhydrous Ammonia 2.2, a hazardous material, prior to obtaining a Hazardous Materials Safety Permit. The applicant met its burden to prove its eligibility for an EAJA award. The Agency was only substantially justified in alleging the applicant committed two of the three regulatory violations contained in the Notice of Claim, and so the applicant was entitled to a reasonable award of fees and expenses. Show
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Multistar Industries, Inc. dba Multifrost, US DOT No. 461410
$ 1,930
Multistar Industries, Inc. dba Multifrost The Notice of Claim alleged that the Applicant violated: 1) 49 C.F.R. § 171.2(e)/173.315 by offering for transportation an unauthorized tank to transport a hazardous material in commerce, and 2) 49 C.F.R. § 173.22(b) by offering a shipment of Anhydrous Ammonia 2.2, a hazardous material, to a carrier that does not hold a Hazardous Materials Safety Permit. The applicant met its burden to prove its eligibility for an EAJA award. The Agency was only substantially justified in alleging the applicant committed one of the two regulatory violations contained in the Notice of Claim, and so the applicant was entitled to a reasonable award of fees and expenses. 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