Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33016664/No-08-1322-Astrue-v-Ratliff
Timestamp: 2015-04-27 18:58:53
Document Index: 133204664

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2412', '§3716', '§3701', '§3701', '§3716', '§2412', '§2412', '§2412', '§2412', '§2412', '§2412', '§2412', '§406', '§406', '§2412', '§2412', '§2412', '§1988', '§2412']

P. 1No. 08-1322, Astrue v. RatliffNo. 08-1322, Astrue v. RatliffRatings: (0)|Views: 432|Likes: 0Published by macrospect7211More info:Published by: macrospect7211 on Jun 14, 2010Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/33016664/No-08-1322-Astrue-v-Ratliff03/19/2014pdftextoriginal 1
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FORTHE EIGHTH CIRCUITNo. 08–1322. Argued February 22, 2010—Decided June 14, 2010Respondent Ratliff was Ruby Kills Ree’s attorney in Ree’s successfulsuit against the United States Social Security Administration for Social Security benefits. The District Court granted Ree’s unopposedmotion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act(EAJA), which provides,
that “a court shall award to a prevailing party . . . fees and other expenses . . . in any civil action . . .brought by or against the United States.” 28 U. S. C. §2412(d)(1)(A).Before paying the fees award, the Government discovered that Reeowed the United States a debt that predated the award. Accordingly,it sought an administrative offset against the award under 31U. S. C. §3716, which subjects to offset all “funds payable by theUnited States,” §3701(a)(1), to an individual who owes certain delinquent federal debts, see §3701(b), unless,
payment is exemptedby statute or regulation. See,
§3716(e)(2). The parties to thiscase have not established that any such exemption applies to§2412(d) fees awards, which, as of 2005, are covered by the TreasuryDepartment’s Offset Program (TOP). After the Government notifiedRee that it would apply TOP to offset her fees award against a portion of her debt, Ratliff intervened, challenging the offset on thegrounds that §2412(d) fees belong to a litigant’s attorney and thusmay not be used to satisfy the litigant’s federal debts. The DistrictCourt held that because §2412(d) directs that fees be awarded to the“prevailing party,” not to her attorney, Ratliff lacked standing tochallenge the offset. The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that underits precedent, EAJA attorney’s fees are awarded to prevailing parties’attorneys.
A §2412(d)(1)(A) attorney’s fees award is payable to the litigant
2 ASTRUE
RATLIFFSyllabusand is therefore subject to an offset to satisfy the litigant’s preexisting debt to the Government. Pp. 3–11.(a) Nothing in EAJA contradicts this Court’s longstanding viewthat the term “prevailing party” in attorney’s fees statutes is a “termof art” that refers to the prevailing litigant. See,
West Virginia Dept. of Health and Hu-man Resources
, 532 U. S. 598, 603. That the term has its usualmeaning in subsection (d)(1)(A) is underscored by the fact that subsection (d)(1)(B) and other provisions clearly distinguish the partywho receives the fees award (the litigant) from the attorney who performed the work that generated the fees. The Court disagrees withRatliff’s assertion that subsection (d)(1)(A)’s use of the verb “award”nonetheless renders §2412(d) fees payable directly to a prevailingparty’s attorney. The dictionaries show that, in the litigation context,the transitive verb “award” has the settled meaning of giving or assigning
judicial decree. Its plain meaning in subsection (d)(1)(A) isthus that the court shall “give or assign by . . . judicial determination” to the “prevailing party” (here, Ree) attorney’s fees in theamount sought and substantiated under,
, subsection(d)(1)(B). That the prevailing party’s attorney may have a beneficialinterest or a contractual right in the fees does not alter this conclusion. Pp. 3–6.(b) The Court rejects Ratliff’s argument that other EAJA provisions, combined with the Social Security Act (SSA) and the Government’s practice of paying some EAJA fees awards directly to attorneys in Social Security cases, render §2412(d) at least ambiguous onthe question presented here, and that these other provisions resolvethe ambiguity in her favor. Even accepting that §2412(d) is ambiguous¸ the provisions and practices Ratliff identifies do not alter theCourt’s conclusion. Subsection (d)(1)(B) and other provisions differentiate between attorneys and prevailing parties, and treat attorneyson par with other service providers, in a manner that forecloses theconclusion that attorneys have a right to direct payment of subsection (d)(1)(A) awards. Nor is the necessity of such payments established by the SSA provisions on which Ratliff relies. That SSA feesawards are payable directly to a prevailing claimant’s attorney, see42 U. S. C. §406(b)(1)(A), undermines Ratliff’s case by showing thatCongress knows how to create a direct fee requirement where it desires to do so. Given the stark contrast between the language of theSSA and EAJA provisions, the Court is reluctant to interpret subsection (d)(1)(A) to contain a direct fee requirement absent clear textualevidence that such a requirement applies. Such evidence is not supplied by a 1985 EAJA amendment requiring that, “where the claimant’s attorney receives fees for the same work under both [42 U. S. C.
3Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010)Syllabus§406(b) and 28 U. S. C. §2412(d)], the . . . attorney [must] refun[d] tothe claimant the amount of the smaller fee.” See note following§2412. Ratliff’s argument that this recognition that an attorney willsometimes “receiv[e]” §2412(d) fees suggests that subsection (d)(1)(A)should be construed to incorporate the same direct payments to attorneys that the SSA expressly authorizes gives more weight to “recei[pt]” than the term can bear: The ensuing reference to the attorney’s obligation to “refund” the smaller fee to the claimantdemonstrates that the award belongs to the claimant in the firstplace. Moreover, Ratliff’s reading is irreconcilable with the textualdifferences between the two Acts. The fact that the Government, until 2006, frequently paid EAJA fees awards directly to attorneys inSSA cases in which the prevailing party had assigned the attorneyher rights in the award does not alter the Court’s interpretation of the Act’s fees provision. That some such cases involved a prevailingparty with outstanding federal debts is unsurprising, given that itwas not until 2005 that the TOP was modified to require offsetsagainst attorney’s fees awards. And as Ratliff admits, the Government has since discontinued the direct payment practice except incases where the plaintiff does not owe a federal debt and has assigned her right to fees to the attorney. Finally, the Court’s conclusion is buttressed by cases interpreting and applying 42 U. S. C.§1988, which contains language virtually identical to §2412(d)(1)(A)’s.See,
, 475 U. S. 717, 730
732, and n. 19. Pp. 6– 11.540 F. 3d 800, reversed and remanded.T
, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. S
O-TOMAYOR
, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which S
More From This User10-333 Swarthout v. Cookemacrospect721109-291 Thompson v. North American Stainlessmacrospect721109-737 Ortiz v. Jordanmacrospect721109-329 Chase Bank v. McCoymacrospect7211Premo v. Mooremacrospect7211Harrington v. Richter macrospect7211Premo v. mooremacrospect7211Harrington v. richtermacrospect7211NASA v Nelsonmacrospect7211Opinion 09-837macrospect7211Opinion 09-907macrospect7211Opinion 09-907macrospect7211Opinion.09-350macrospect7211Rules of the Courtmacrospect7211Abbott v. US/Gould v. US, 09-479macrospect7211No. 08-964, Bilski v. Kapposmacrospect7211No. 08-1521, McDonald v. Chicagomacrospect7211No. 08-1371, Christian Legal Society v. Martinezmacrospect7211No. 09-559, Doe v. Reedmacrospect7211No. 09-158, Magwood v. Pattersonmacrospect7211No. 08-1394, Skilling v. United Statesmacrospect7211No. 08-1214, Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhoo...macrospect7211No. 08-1191, Morrison v. National Australia Bankmacrospect7211No. 08-1196, Weyhrauch v. United Statesmacrospect7211No. 08-876, Black v. United Statesmacrospect7211