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 Defense U.S. Army Charles J. Hubert, et al. v. United States
$ 17,500
Charles J. Hubert and Jeremy I. Sunkel Settlement. Class action lawsuit challenging the manner in which discharge upgrade decisions were made concerning PTSD and other mental health issues. These fees were settled as part of a negotiated settlement concerning not only fees, but an amicable resolution of multiple matters within the lawsuit. Show
U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. NPS
$ 32,677
Peter T. Jenkins, Paula Dinerstein, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility The lawsuit challenged the E-Bike Policy under five legal theories. First, Plaintiffs alleged that the E-Bike Policy violated NPS regulations and the Administrative Procedure Act. Second, Plaintiffs contended that the Policy was issued in violation of NEPA because no NEPA document was prepared. Third, they asserted that the Policy was issued by an official that was unlawfully acting as the NPS Director in violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). Fourth, they contended that the Policy was issued by an official without authority because the NPS unlawfully created a third deputy director position in violation of its Organic Act. And, fifth, they alleged that the Policy was the result of a de facto advisory committee in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). These claims were later amended to challenge a subsequent regulation. There was no evidence of NEPA compliance for the Policy in the record. Had later actions not mooted or otherwise cured issues relating to the Policy, the Court made clear that Defendants would have lost those claims as well. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Allen v. Barr
$ 67,686
REDACTED Mr. Allen was placed in removal proceedings. He argued he was a United States citizen. The Immigration Judge disagreed and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Mr. Allen was a United States citizen and terminated the removal proceedings against him. Counsel filed a subsequent claim for attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b). The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated "[t]he position of the Respondent and the agency was not "substantially justified." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); see also Comm'r, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 158 n.6 (1990); Gomez-Beleno v. Holder, 644 F.3d 139, 144-46 (2d Cir. 2011)." The Court did not further explain their conclusion. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection Singh v. Garland
$ 8,446
REDACTED The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held the Board of Immigration Appeals failed to consider relevant facts in relation to Mr. Singh's aslyum and withholding of removal claims. Following remand, counsel filed a claim for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2412(b). The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded the government's position was not substantially justified. However, the court denied fees in relation to a seperate petition and for fees accrued during remand proceedings before the Executive Office for Immigration Review. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection Alvarado-Herrera v. Garland
$ 12,583
REDACTED The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the immigration judge's conclusion that violence was not perpetrated with the consent or acquiesce of a public official was not supported by substantial evidence given Mr. Alvarado-Herrara's specific assertions of police complicity with a gang's violent acts. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case. Following remand, counsel filed a claim for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2412(b). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit awarded fees at the cost-of-living adjusted statutory maximum rates but did not award enhanced fees. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection Perez-Trujilo v. Garland Null
$ 51,339
REDACTED The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in overturning Mr. Perez-Trujilo's adjustment of status. Following remand, counsel filed a claim for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2412(b). The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit awarded fees but did not explain why. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection Sow v. U.S. Attorney General
$ 82,736
REDACTED The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found Mr. Sow's attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel and the ineffective assistance prejudiced his case. The Court remanded to the Bord of Immigration Appeals with instructions for the immigration judge to reconsider Mr. Sow's applications for relief. Following remand, counsel filed a claim for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2412(b). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit awarded fees but did not explain why. 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) Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt et al., Case. No. 1:19-cv-01607-KBJ
$ 8,500
Collette Adkins CBD filed suit alleging that FWS had failed to designate critical habitat for the salamanders in violation of Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Service missed the deadlines for designating critical habitat. Plaintiffs entitled to attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the "catalyst theory." Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt (D. Ariz. No. CV-4:19-218-TUC-RCC
$ 5,100
Brian Segee On April 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging the FWS missed the statutory timeframe to issue a 90-day finding. On September 6, 2019, FWS published the 90-day finding. On September 19, 2019, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint. The Service failed to meet a statutory deadline. Plaintiffs entitled to fees and costs pursuant to the "catalyst theory." Show
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Western Watersheds Project, Wildearth Guardians & Predator Defense v. USDA Aphis Wildlife Services, USFS & BLM
$ 16,667
Advocates for the West Environmental groups sued USDA Aphis, USFS & BLM for violations of NEPA in providing predator controls on federal lands. The settlement and attorney fees payment of $50,000 was split 3-ways among federal agencies. The parties settled upon mutually agreed terms, no admission of liability nor as future precedent, but included attorney fees and costs. Show
Other Agency General Services Administration State of Washington, et al., v. Shelanda Young
$ 10,927
Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. The states of Washington and Oregon, along with multiple Native American tribes, filed a civil complaint/preliminary injunction against the United States in the Western District of Washington in connection with the Public Buildings Reform Board’s (PBRB) determination to dispose of the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) records facility in Seattle, WA, pursuant to the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act (FASTA) “high value round.” The General Services share of the award is $2,731.79. The parties have stipulated to dismissing all claims without predjudice, without any costs, except the Plaintiff Tanana Chiefs Conference Inc., shall recover attorney fees of $10,927.15 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. Show
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services OS/OGC/CMSD STI Pharma, LLC -- Medicaid Drug Rebate Program
$ 80,000
STI Pharma, LLC STI argued that it was entitled to $117,270.24 in attorneys fees, costs, and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412. STI argued that it was a prevailing party as defined in the statute, that the government’s position was not substantially justified, and that the costs it requested were reasonable. The parties agreed to settle this matter for $80,000. Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement REDACTED v. Barr
$ 9,272
REDACTED Petition for Review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). In a published decision, the panel held that the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in finding the noncitizen was not credible viewing the totality of the circumstances. The Ninth Circuit wrote: "Our holding that the agency’s decision was unsupported by substantial evidence flows directly from well-established circuit precedent regarding responsiveness, lack of detail, and omissions in the credibility context. The government’s position was therefore not substantially justified." Show
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement REDACTED v. Garland
$ 60,984
REDACTED Petition for review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The Ninth Circuit held that flawed Interpol Red Notice did not establish serious reasons to believe that the petitioner committed a serious nonpolitical crime. The Ninth Circuit did not provide a basis for awarding EAJA fees Show
Viewing 15 of 73710 results