Opinion ID: 199369
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Standard: Limited Role for Objective Factors

Text: 11 The EAJA obliges a court to award attorney's fees and expenses to a party that prevails in litigation against the government unless the court finds that the government's position was substantially justified. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). 5 There is no dispute that appellants prevailed, and the controversy before us therefore centers on whether the government was substantially justified in pursuing debarment. That the government lost in the underlying litigation does not create a presumption that its position was not substantially justified. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 569 (1988); United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 960 F.2d 200, 208 (lst Cir. 1992). Nor does success at some stage of the litigation prove the requisite level of justification. Pierce, 487 U.S. at 569; Sierra Club v. Sec'y of Army, 820 F.2d 513, 517 (lst Cir. 1987). 6 The question is whether the government's position has a reasonable basis in law and fact,Pierce, 487 U.S. at 566 n.2, or, stated another way, whether a reasonable person could think it correct, id.; see also De Allende v. Baker, 891 F.2d 7, 11-12 (lst Cir. 1989). This standard means that the government's case need not be frivolous to support an award of fees, Pierce, 487 U.S. at 566, but, on the other hand, the litigation need not be a cliffhanger to be sufficiently justified. The government bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that its position was substantially justified, De Allende, 891 F.2d at 12, and we review the district court's determination for abuse of discretion, Pierce, 487 U.S. at 562-63.