# U n ited S ta tes C o u rt o f A p p ea ls

FO R TH E D IST R IC T O F C O L U M B IA C IR C U IT

Argued Oc tober 2, 2008 Dec ided Fe bruar y 13, 2009
No. 07-5026
J OYCE M. H I LL , A PP EL L ANT

v.
R OW AN W. G O U LD , A C TI NG D I R EC TOR , U NI TED S T A T ES F I SH AND W I L DL I F E S ERV I CE , E T AL .,

A PPEL L EES

Appea l from the United States District Court fo r t he Di str ic t of

Col umb ia (No. 99c v01926)

J oh n F . Ka rl J r. argued the c ause a

nd filed the brie fs for
a pp e lla nt.
Ellen J. Durk

ee , Attorney , U.S. Depar

tment of J ustice, argued the c ause f

or fe dera l appellee s. W i t h h er on the brief
wa s K a t h r yn E. Kovac

s , Attorney

. Larry M. Corcoran , Attorney , enter ed an a

ppear ance
. B e fo re : H EN DE R S ON , R AND OL PH , and G AR L AND , Circ uit Judges

.2
O p i n i o nf o r th e C o urt f

i l e d b y Circuit Judge RAND OL PH

. RAND OL PH , Circuit Judge : A ft e r w innin ga laws uit ag ainst the Secre tary

of the Interior, Joy ce M. H ill filed an application to re cover

her attorney ’s fe es and expenses under the Equal Acce s s t o J ustice Ac t, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The district court de nied t h e ap p lication on the basis that the Secr etar y ’s po sit ion at th e me ri ts s ta g e wa s su bs tanti a lly

jus tif ie d. Hi ll appea led. We aff

irm.
I.
The mute swan, a bir d in d ig e n o u s to Eurasia, was introduced into the United States f or ornamental purposes in the 19th and 20t h ce n t u ries. Joy ce H ill took up t he ca use of the mut e sw an in 19 99

. She su e d nin e te e n fe de ra l, state and pr ivate defe ndants, complainingof numerous wro ng s the mute swan specie s had alleg edly

suffe red. H er pr incipal claim wa s that the Secre tary of the Interiorimproperly denied the spe cies the pr otect ion

of the Migra

tor y B ir d T re aty

Ac t, 1 6 U .S. C. §§ 70 3- 71 2. Th e Tr e aty Ac t li mit s inte r a lia the pursuit, hunting and killing of

migr atory

birds cover ed by four tre aties to which the United States is a par ty

. See H umane Soc iety v. G l i ck

man , 217 F.3d 882, 884–85 ( D.C. Cir. 2000). T h e Secre tary of the Int er i or wields broa d authority to implement the treaties. 16 U. S.C. § 7 12 (2 ); see also id. § 7 0 4

. P ur s u an tt o th ata u th o r i ty, the Se c re tary

pu blishe d a lis t of pr ote c te d mi g ra

tor y bir ds in 1973 and revised i t in 1985. List of Migratory Birds , 5 0 C. F .R. § 10.13 (1999). The list di d not include the mute swa n.
Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

he ld t hat th e S ecr e tary ’s List

of Migratory Birds rested on a permissible const ruction of the Trea ty Act and grante d the Secretary ’s motion for summary j udg ment. Hi ll v . B ab bit t , N o
. 9 9

- CV

- 1 9 2 6 , 2 0 0 0 WL 33912018 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2000). O n appeal, this court3

T h e H ill p anel r e c o u n ted th e re g u latory h ist o ry
. S ee 275 1 F .3 d a t 1 0 1

– 0 2

. T h e f

irs t r e g u la tio n s im p le m e n tin g th e T re a ty A c t in 1 9 1 6 a p p e a re d to d e fin e “ m ig ra to ry b ird ” to in c lu d e a ll sw a n s, b u t in 1965 t he Se c r e t a r y a dde d t h e re q ui r e m e nt t ha t t he bi r ds be “i n d i genou s t o t h e U n i t ed S t at es
. ” S ee id

. a t 101 ( quo t i n g 3 0 Fe d. R eg. 5 ,65 0 (A p r. 2 1 , 1 9 6 5 ))

. T w o y ears l at er, t h e S ecreta ry ag a in
a m e nde d t he r e g ul a t i o ns , a ddi ng a ne w de f i ni t i o n t ha t di d no t i nc l ude th e in d ige n o u s req u irem en t, w it h o u t stri k in g th e o ld d efin it ion

. I d. at 1 0 2

. T h ese d u al d efi n i t i on s r em ai n ed i n eff ect u n t i l th e S ecret ary f

i rs t p u b li sh ed th e d isp u ted li st i n 1 9 7 3

. Id

. reve rsed. In Hi ll v. Nor t o n , 275 F.3d 98 ( D.C. Cir. 2001), the court he ld that the S ecr etar y ’s ex clusion of t he mute swa n from the protec ted bird list was arbitra ry and ca pricious under

the Administrative Procedur e Ac t. Hill’s winning c laim turned on the mea ning of a ke y statut or y te rm — “ migrator

y bir d” — wh ic h the Tr e aty Ac t di d
no t de fi ne at th e tim e of

Hi ll’ s su it. Th e Ac t st ate d o nly that it s 1 p r o te c ti o n s e xte n d

to “ an y mi g r ato r y b ir d

. . . in c lu d e d

in the terms of” four bilater al treaties that the United S t ates sig ned with Great Britain (on behalf of Canada ), Mexi co, Japan and the Soviet Union. 16 U.S.C . § 703(a) . Eac h treat y d ef i n es t he protec ted class of

birds differ ently

. Se e Hi ll , 275 F.3d at 100–01 (c ata loguin gthe relevan t tr e aty langua g e ). B y

the tim e Hi ll
a pp e a le d to thi s c ourt , a ll pa rt ie s a g re e d that the Cana da Tr e aty should control beca

use i t is the broa dest of the f our treaties. Id.
at 10 3– 04

. Th e int

ro du c tor y Pr oc lamatio n to the Cana da Tr e aty re fe rs to b ir ds that “ tr ave rs e ” the signat ory natio ns in t

he ir “ann u a l mi g r ati o n s
. ” Co n v e n ti o n f o r th e Pr o te c ti o n of Migr atory Birds, U .S.-Gr. B rit., Aug

. 1 6 , 1916, 39 Stat. 1702 (“ Cana da Tr e aty” ). Th e Canada Tr e aty a lso sp e c if

ic a lly ide nti fi e s “ An atid a e , o r wate rf ow l, inc lud ingbr ant, wi ld d uc ks , g eese and swa

ns” as a protec ted bird family

. Id. art. I , § 1(a)

.4
The Hi ll pa

ne l th ou g ht t

he re le va nt s tatut or

y and tr e aty languag e “strong ly

indicate[d]” that the mute swan is a pr otected migrator y bir d. 27 5 F .3 d at 99

. B ut the pa ne l de c lin e d to ho ld that the plain meaning“positively fore closed” the Secr etar y ’s interpre tation. Id. at 105. The court’s hesitation stemmed from the unus ual re g ulatory

scheme , id . at 99, the novelty of the qu e sti on , a

nd the tr a dit ion a l “great we ig ht” that c ourt s g ive to the Ex ecutive B ranc h’s treaty interpre tations, id. at 104 (quoting Kolovrat v. Oregon , 366 U.S. 187, 194 (1961)).
Th e c ourt c on sid e re d whe the r, de sp it e the os te ns ibl y plain text , the Secr etar

y ’s in t erpretation might be per missibl e. Id. at 105

. The Sec reta ry offe red thre e main re asons for excluding the spe cies: the mute swan is not native to the United States; the mute swan is harmful to other pr otected bir d specie s and the ir e nv ir onments; a

nd e xten din gpr ote c tio n to the mut e swan might conflict with other statutory obligations. See id. As to t he fi rs t tw o p oints, the c ourt ha d “ no ide a

wh e th e r t

he se ar gu m en t s ar e p ert i n en t , an d , i f s o , wh et h er th ey ar e c o mp el l i n g” because the a g ency

rec ord wa s “bar

ren” on those issues. Id. at 105. The c ourt there fore held that the Secre tary failed to justify her inter pretation and vacated the list insofar as it ex cluded the mute swan. Id. at 107.
II.
Wit h a mer its victory secur e, Hill petitioned the district
co urt f o r anaw ar d

o f att o r n e y ’ s f e e s p ur s u an t t o th e E qual Acc ess to J ustice Ac t. The Act authorizes an award of fee s to a party preva iling ag ainst the g overnme nt unless the g overnme nt establishes that it s p o s i t i on was “ substantially justified or . . . sp e c ia l c ir c ums tanc e s ma ke an awar d unju st. ” 28 U. S.C. § 2412(d)( 1)(A) . A position is s ubstantially justified if the underlying ag ency action and the leg al ar g uments in defense of the ac tion had “a r easona

ble basis both in la

w and f act.” Pierce5
v. Unde rwood , 4 87 U. S. 5 52 , 5 65 (1 98 8) (c itatio n o mitte d) ; see also Halverson v. Slater , 206 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 2000). That standar d d em ands more tha n mere non-fr ivolousness, but le ss t ha n a sh ow ingthat th e g ov e rnme nt’ s “ de c isi on to l iti g ate was ba sed on a substantial probab i l ity of pre vailing.” Taucher v. Brown-Hruska , 396 F.3d 1168, 1173 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (qu o t i n g Spence r v. NLRB , 712 F.2d 539, 557 ( D.C. Cir. 1983)). The dist rict cour

t concluded that the Secre tary ’s position was substantially

justified and denied H ill’s fee a pplication on that basis. We reviewthe district court’s de cision fo r ab use of discretion. Id. at 1172.
The Sec ret ary ’s chief

argument befor e the mer its panel was that the Tr eaty Act did not apply to species of

migr atory birds that wer e not native to Nor th Am er i ca. T he Secr etar y mustered ample evidenc e to support the fa ctual asse rtion that the mute swanis ane xo ti c s p e c ie s
. A c c o r d in gto th e Se c r e ta r y ’s e xpe rt te sti mony

and do c ume nta

ry e vid e nc e , a ll fer a l N or

th Americ an mute swa

ns are desce nded from esca ped and r elea sed members of

orname ntal gro up s introduced into the United State s.
I n suppo rt o f

h e r a s s e rti o nth at t

h e T r e aty A c t d o e s n ot a pp ly to exot ic sp e c ie s, the Se c re tary argue d th at th e taxono mic lis tin gof bir d f amil ie s in Art ic le Iof

the Cana da

Tr e aty re ve a ls a latent a mbiguity in the ot herw ise unqualified term “migr atory bir ds .” Th e tr e aty lis ts pr ote c te d bir d fa mil ie s, and

e a c h f amil y name is followed by

the common names of species a nd specie s g roups in eac h family

. See Cana da Tr e aty , a rt . I , § 1( a ); se e als o Protocol Amendingthe 1916 Convention for the Prote cti on of Migr atory Birds in Canada and the United States (“Ca nada Protocol”) a

rt. I , § 1, U.S.-Can., Dec . 14, 1995, Sen. Treaty Doc. 1 0 4

- 2 8

. A c c o r d in g to th e Se c r e ta r y , e a c h e nu me r ate d

specie s and at lea st some members of e ach e num er at ed g roup we re native to the sig natory

nations. By

contra st, many

nonnative6

I n r e s po ns e t o t hi s c o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n i n H ill , t h e M igra tory 2 B ird T re a ty R e fo rm A c t a m e n d e d th e M ig ra to ry B ird T re a ty A c t to l i m i t i t s s c o pe “o nl y to m i g r a t o r y bi r d s pe c i e s t ha t a r e na t i v e t o t he U n it e d S ta te s o r its te r r it o r ie s .” P u b . L . N o . 1 0 8 -4 4 7 , D iv . E ., T it le I, § 1 4 3 (b ), 1 1 8 S ta t. 2 8 0 9 , 3 0 7 1 (c o d ifie d a t 1 6 U .S .C . § 7 0 3 (b )(1 )); se e al s o Fund f

or Ani m al

s v

. N or t on , 472 F. 3d 872, 877 ( D

. C

. C i r
. 2006) ( n ot i n g th e am end m ent w as “a cor r ect i on of w h at C on gr es s b el i eved to b e an erro n eo u s ju d icial in terp retation o f a t rea ty ”). T h e S ec retary arg u es th at th e R efo rm A ct an d it s ac co m p an y in g legislat iv e h ist o ry show c o nc l us i v e l y t ha t t he Se c r e t a r y ’ s na t i v e - o nl y i nt e r pr e t a t i o n was r eas on abl e. I t i s t r u e th at, in ot h er cont ext s, s om e c ou r t s som et i m es t r eat an am end m ent t h at cl ar i f i es disp u ted s t at u t or y l angu age as an ex p ress ion of th e o rigin al ac t’s m ea n in g
. S ee, e. g

. , W es son v. U

n i t ed S t a t es , 4 8 F .3 d 8 9 4 , 9 0 0

– 0 1 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ); s e e als o 1 A N . S in g er, Sut he r l and St at ut e s and St at ut or y C ons t r uc t i on § 2 2 :3 1 (6 th ed . 2 0 0 8 ). O n t h e ot h er han d , t h er e i s r eas on to d ou b t t h e i n t er p r et at i ve va l u e of
a n a m e ndm e nt w hi c h, l i k e t he R e f o r m A c t , l o ng po s t da t e s t he
am en d ed statu te. R a i n w a t er v. U n i t ed S t a t es , 356 U

. S. 590, 593 (1 9 5 8 ); c f. S u lliv a n v . F in k e lste in , 496 U

. S. 617, 628 n. 8 ( 1990)

. But
we ne e d no t de c i de t he r e l e v a nc e o f t he R e f o r m A c t be c a us e we t hi nk th e S ec retary’s p o sit ion w as rea so n ab le ev en w it h o u t i t. specie s within each f

ami l y wer e not listed. From that pattern, the Secr etar

y argued, the Sec reta

ry rea son ab l y

understood the Cana da Tr e aty to dis tin g uis h be tw e e n n ativ e sp e c ie s and e xotic speci es introduce d to North Americ a by man. The Sec reta

ry there fore believed it prope r to limitthe Treaty Act’s pr otections to swan spec ies native to North Ame rica

. 2
Th e Se c re tary fu

rt he r ar g ue d that r e a din gthe tr e atie s to cover the mute s wan would be a self- destructive inter pretation. The mute s w an is a b e a u ti f u l b ir d b u t it c an b e n a sty . The Se c re tary pr od uc e d e vid e nc e that th e sp e c ie s is a men a c e to other birds protec ted by fede ral law. A terr itorial ag g ressor a nd prolific proc reator, t he mute swa n depletes native birds’ food
source s and occupies t heir nesting grounds. The ActingDirec tor7

F o r e x am p le, th e S ec retary p rese n ted ev id en ce th at th e e n ti re 3

m u t e s w an p op u l at i on of t h e C h es apeake B ay — w h ere H il l al l eged
aes t h et i c i n

jury — desce n d s f

r om 5 ornam ent al s w ans th at es caped f r o m wa t e r f

r o nt e s t a t e s i n 1962. of the U.S. F ish

and Wild lif e Se rv ic e c on c lud e d th at “ mut e swans pose a serious threat to the ecolog ical integ rity of many
are as, includingthe National Wil dlife Refug e Sy stem and other Fe dera l L ands commi tted to the m aintenanc e of natural wildlife diversity .”
The Sec reta

ry ’s conc ern a

bout the impact of destructive exoti c species l ike t he mut e swan had som e basis in three of the migr atory bird treaties. Provisions in the treaty with J apan, the treaty with the former Soviet Union, and the Can ad a P ro tocol require d the sig natory

countries to cont ro l t he importation of liv e anim a ls that ma

y be ha rm fu l to migrator

y bir ds or the ir environments. See Convention for the Protec tion of Migr atory B ir ds and

B ir ds in D ang e r o f Ex tin c tio n, and Th e ir Environment, ar

t. VI , U.S.-J apan, Mar. 4, 1972, 25 U.S.T. 3331; Convention C o n ce rningthe Conservation of Migr atory Birds and their Envir onment, art. IV § 2(b), U .S.-U.S

. S

. R

. , Nov. 19, 1976, 29 U.S.T. 4649; Canada Protocol, art. I V. The Sec reta ry also pointed out that so m e m u t e swa ns in North Americ a we re introduced only

afte r the sig ning of

t h e fi rst migr atory

bird treaty in 1916. 3
Of cours e th e Se c r e ta

r y ’ s p o s it io nd id

n o t p r e v a il

. B ut th e question is not whether the Sec reta ry had the be tter arguments. I t is enoug h that the Secr etar y ’s interpret at i o n and leg al ar g uments had a rea sonable basis in f act and in the text and p u rpose of

the controllingstatute and tre aties. Ther e wa s no thi ngun

us ua l or un so un d a

bo ut t he Se c re tary ’s ba sic pr e mis e that an e na c tm ent ’s c on te xt an d und e rl yingpo lic ie s c an c a st doubt on “‘ t h e most natural r eading ’ of a statutory phrase .”8
Tataranow icz v. Sullivan , 959 F.2d 268, 276 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (qu o t i n g McCarthy v . Bronson , 500 U.S. 136, 139 (1991)). N or did the Secre tary ’s justification suf fer from the defe cts common to p os iti on s th at are no t su bs tanti a lly

jus tif ie d. I t wa s n ot “ fl atly at odds with the contr o l l i n gcase law,” Am . W re c k ing Cor p
. v. Sec’ y of Labor , 364 F.3d 321, 326–27 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (inter nal quotati on marks omitted), and the Secre tary cer tainly did not press he r position in “the fac e of an unbroke n line of authority ,” P recision Concrete v . NLRB , 3 6 2 F

. 3 d 8 4 7 , 8 5 1

– 5 2 ( D

. C. Cir. 2004), or a g ainst a “stringof losses,” Contractor’ s Sand & Grave l, Inc. v. Fed. M

ine Safety &Health Rev iew Comm’n , 199 F.3d 1 3 3 5 , 1 3 4 1 ( D

. C. Ci r
. 2 0 0 0 ) ( inte r n a l q u o tati o nmarks omi tte d) . We are satis fi e d th at the dis tr ic t court a c te d w ith in i ts discretion in conc luding that the Sec reta ry ’s position wa s, on the wh ole , “ jus ti fie d to a

de g re e that c ou ld s atis fy a re a so na ble person.” Underwood , 487 U.S. at 565.
That asse ssment is consi s t ent with the merits pane l’s
rea soning. See Tauche r , 396 F.3d at 1174. T h e p an el did not resolve th e Se c r e ta r y ’s ar g uments conce rning the native–nonnative distinction or the bird’s ecolog ical im pact e ith e r wa y
. Ins te a d the pa

ne l state d that th ese a rgume nts amounted to “post hoc r ationalizations” whi ch could not save the re g ulation. Hi ll , 2 7 5 F. 3 d at 1 0 5 (qu o t i n g Burlington T ruck Lin es , Inc. v . United States , 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). The S ec retary lost because the ag ency

rec ord wa s “utterly

silent on any basis, let alone a

ny rea sonable ba sis, to support ex clusion of the mute swan f

rom the List

of Migratory Birds .” Id

. At the fe e stag e, how ever , an inade quate a g ency rec ord is not ne cessarily

fata l. See F

.J. Vollmer Co., Inc . v. Magaw , 102 F.3d 591, 595 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

. We e x pl ai n ed i n FEC v. Ro se , 806 F.2d 1081 (D.C. Cir. 1986), t hat t he “adequa cy of an
a g e nc y ’s e xplanatio n” is i n s ome c a se s “ log ic a lly unre late d to whether the under lying a g ency

action is justi fied unde r the9

The f e e s t a g e a na l y s i s f

ocuses on t he r e a s o na bl e ne s s o f t he 4 g o v ern m en t’s p o sit ion at t h e “ ti m e th e g o v ern m en t t o o k th is p o sit ion .” Tr ahan v

. Br ady , 9 0 7 F .2 d 1 2 1 5 , 1 2 1 9 ( D .C . C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). The gover n m ent f

i r st t ook i t s l i t i gat i on posi t i on befor e M e ad was de c i de d. org anic statute,” id. at 108 8

. In this case, the Sec reta ry took a
rea soned position on a novel i ssue, and the sparse ag ency rec ord did not “obviously

defy the re quirements of the [Admi nistrative Procedur e Ac t] .” Id. at 1089. The void in t he re cord did not result from the Sec reta

ry ’s fa ilure to respo n d to “re levant and signific ant” c omments. Grand Canyon Air Tour Coal. v. FAA , 15 4 F .3 d 4 55 , 4 68 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 8) . T o th e c on tr ary , H ill identified no comment by any party conce rning the exclusion of nonnative birds in response to the age ncy ’s not ices of pr oposed rulemakingin 1973 and in 1984. 38 Fe d. Reg

. 10,208 (Apr. 25, 1973); 49 Fe d. Reg . 23,197 (June 5, 1984).
Nor c an we fault the Sec reta ry fo r t hinking the c ourt might acc ept counsel’s elabor ation of the S ec reta ry ’s int e rp re tatio n. At

le a st unti l th e Sup re me Court ’s de c isi on in Un ite d States v. M

e ad Cor p ., 53 3 U. S. 21 8 ( 20 01 ), thi s c ourt in some circ umstances de fer red to a g ency

interpre tations of statutes and re gulations articulated f or the fir st tim e in leg al br ie fs

. See, e .g., Ass’n of Bituminous Cont ractors, Inc. v . Apfel ,

4 156 F.3d 1246, 1252 (D.C. C ir. 1998) (defer ringto an ag ency ’s lit ig atio n po sit ion int e rp re tin ga statut e wh e re it a

pp e are d s imp ly to articulate an e x planation of long standing ag ency prac tice); Nat’l W ildlif e Fed’n v. Browner , 127 F.3d 1126, 1129 (D.C. Cir. 19 9 7 ). The Secre tary

took a re asonable approa ch to that relatively u n s et tled are a of a dminist rative la w. See Lundin v. Mec ham , 980 F.2d 1450, 1460 ( D.C. Cir. 1992).

In s um, th e thi nn e ss o f t

he a g e nc y

re c or d at th e me ri ts stag e does not a l t er our conc lusion that the Secreta ry ’s10

W e a lso d e n y H ill’ s re q u e st to in c re a se h e r a w a rd o f c o sts 5

u n d er F eder al R u l e of C i vi l P r ocedu r e 54 ( d ) becau se s h e h as not
s ho wn t ha t t he di s t r i c t c o ur t a bus e d i t s di s c r e t i o n i n c a l c ul a t i n g t he costs

. interpre tation and ar g uments had a r easona ble basis i n fac t and l aw
. T h e d i s tri ctco urtd i d n o tab u s e i t s d i s cr et i o ni ns o fi n d i n g. 5 Affirmed.