Opinion ID: 768624
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith standard

Text: 43 The EAJA directs courts to award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses . . . incurred by that party in any civil action . . . unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) (1994) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase substantially justified to mean justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person. Pierce, 487 U.S. at 565. The Court equated a substantially justified position with one having a reasonable basis in law and fact. Id. at 566 n.2. The Hyde Amendment, on the other hand, allows a district court in a criminal case to award to a prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigating expenses, where the court finds that the position of the United States was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith, unless the court finds that special circumstances make such an award unjust. Hyde Amendment, supra (emphasis added). Appellants suggest that, other than the switched burden of proof, the standards in the EAJA and the Hyde Amendment are the same; a movant may succeed under the Hyde Amendment if he establishes that the prosecution was not substantially justified. The language of the two provisions and the legislative history prove otherwise. 44 The Hyde Amendment, as originally introduced on the floor of the House, made attorney's fees available absent special circumstances making such an award unjust, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified. 143 Cong. Rec. H7786-04, H7791 (daily ed. Sept. 24, 1997). In discussing the proposed Amendment, Representative Hyde drew parallels between it and the EAJA. As far as the standard applicable in such proceedings, he stated that the Amendment ought to protect anybody who is abused by a suit that is not substantially justified. . . . What is the remedy, if not this, for somebody who has been unjustly, maliciously, improperly, abusively tried by the Government . . . . Id. at H7792. Representative David Skaggs responded to these comments, stating, I think the gentleman proves too much. Were the words 'malicious' and 'abusive' inhis amendment, and maybe those are criteria that also ought to be introduced, it would be a different matter. Id. The standard was eventually changed to vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith in the Conference Committee. See Gilbert, 198 F.3d at 1301-02. This change signifies Congress' desire to limit the scope of the Amendment. A movant under the Hyde Amendment must prove more than just that the government's position was not substantially justified. See id. at 1302, 1304; cf. Pierce, 487 U.S. at 566 (To be 'substantially justified' means, of course, more than merely undeserving of sanctions for frivolousness . . . .).