Document: 496 U.S. 154 110 S.Ct. 2316 L.Ed.2d 134 COMMISSIONER, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, et al., Petitionersv.Marie Lucie JEAN, al. No. 89-601. Argued April 23, 1990. Decided June 4, Syllabus The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) directs a court award fees and other expenses private parties who prevail in litigation against the United States if, inter alia, Government's position was not "substantially justified." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). District Court found that respondents were prevailing within meaning of EAJA, petitioners' substantially justified, there no special circumstances would make fee unjust. Appeals upheld these findings, but remanded for recalculation fees. Although petitioners concede time incurred applying are appropriate, they contend ineligible services rendered during substantial over unless finds itself justified. Held: A second "substantial justification" finding is required before EAJA awarded itself. Pp. 158-166. (a) EAJA's requirement single operates as clear threshold determining party's eligibility. Once litigant has met all eligibility conditions fees, district discretion adjust amount various portions litigation, guided by reason statutory criteria. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 424, 103 1933, 76 40. There textual support Government may assert defense at multiple stages an action, since refers only "position," §§ 2412(d)(1)(A) (d)(2)(D), taken past, 2412(d)(1)(B), "any civil action," 158-162. (b) Petitioners' argument automatic awards "fees fees" will encourage exorbitant requests, generate needless unreasonably burden federal fisc rejected. First, automatic, always fix once established. In contrast, requiring courts separate regarding opposition requests multiply litigation. Second, purpose eliminate average person's financial disincentive challenge unreasonable governmental actions be defeated if could impose on costs litigating exceed those claim's merits. 162-166. 863 F.2d 759 (CA 11 1988), affirmed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Washington, D.C., petitioners. Ira Kurzban, Miami, Fla., respondents. STEVENS 1 expenses" among conditions, justified."1 many cases able resolve stipulation claim under EAJA. some cases, however, application prompt litigate aspects request or require convene hearing deciding authorized. question this case whether party such proceeding 2 Because decision so narrow—affecting compensation rather than appropriately services—it necessary restate protracted history vigorously contested litigation.2 It sufficient note expressly "were Act, government's justified unjust."3 findings. Jean Nelson, 759, 765-769 (CA11 1988). After extensive review record developed hearing, decided certain errors "be attorney's expenses." Id., 780. view holding, we must assume least positions took proper even though their merits not. Thus, squarely presents awarding any 3 Petitioners take that, about recoverable.4 respondents' component part integrated prerequisites satisfied, presumptively encompasses Courts have resolved differently, granted certiorari. 493 1055, 862, 107 947 (1990).5 I 4 Section Title provides: 5 "Except otherwise specifically provided statute, shall expenses, addition pursuant subsection (a), action (other sounding tort), including proceedings judicial agency brought having jurisdiction unjust." 6 requires: (1) claimant "prevailing party"; (2) justified"; (3) "special unjust"; and, (4) submitted 30 days final judgment supported itemized statement. Only justified" condition issue case.6 7 most telling answer submission complete absence position. Subsection (d)(1)(A) "in action" without reference parts discovery appeals. "the States" singular also suggests need one justification 8 1985, Congress amended adding following definition: 9 "(D) 'position States' means, failure act upon which based; except portion proceedings." Pub.L. 99-80, 99 Stat. 185, 2(c)(2)(B), 2412(d)(2)(D). 10 fact "position" again denominated singular, although it encompass both agency's prelitigation conduct Department Justice's subsequent positions, buttresses conclusion determination entire made.7 language chose describing procedure 2412(d)(1)(B) corroborates statute's references finding. contain allegation "that Ibid. Again, position, past. response application. Moreover, 1985 amendment determine past "on basis (including with respect based) made sought." 184-185, 2(b), 2412(d)(1)(B). record" singular.8 12 lacks justification, like party," thus one-time first applicant party" evaluating degree success obtained. If then asserts exception render unjust, additional conditions. As held 40 (1983), "a generous formulation brings plaintiff across threshold. remains what 'reasonable.' " 433, S.Ct., 1939. Similarly, court's task reasonable essentially same described Hensley. id., 433-437, 1939-1941. 13 Hensley, emphasized appropriate allow award, given its "superior understanding desirability avoiding frequent appellate factual matters." 437, 1941. prescribes similar flexibility. 2412(d)(1)(C) empowers court, discretion," "reduce subsection, deny extent course engaged unduly resolution matter controversy." This repeated added definition "position States," excluding "for Supra, 2319; absent dilatory portion" justify denying portion, action.9 14 Any can numerous phases. While parties' postures individual matters more less EAJA—like fee-shifting statutes—favors treating inclusive whole, atomized line-items. See, e.g., Sullivan Hudson, 490 877, 888, 109 2248, 2256, 104 941 (1989) (where administrative "necessary attainment results sought promote providing should considered parcel awarded"). Cf. Gagne Maher, 594 336, 344 (CA2 1979) ("[D]enying attorneys' spent obtaining them 'dilute value forcing attorneys into extensive, uncompensated order gain fees' 42 aff'd grounds, 448 122, 100 2570, 65 653 (1980); Pennsylvania Delaware Valley Citizens' Council Clean Air, 478 546, 559, 106 3088, 3095, 92 439 (1986) (fees postjudgment enforce consent decree properly compensable cost 304(d) Air Act); New York Gaslight Club, Inc. Carey, 447 54, 2024, 64 723 (1980) included 706(k) VII Civil Rights 1964). acknowledge provide litigation; dispute award. They allow, specific determination, 'the preparing . because preparation case[,]" 2414(d)(2)(A),' subject further work pursuing defense. Brief 16, n. 17 (quoting Kelly Bowen, 862 1333, 1334 (CA8 1988)); see supra. We find logical differently ensuing efforts II 15 argue, policy, allowance fisc. 26-31. terms well structure purpose, identify two responses arguments. 16 "automatic." Eligibility established meeting four set out retain fixing Exorbitant, unfounded, procedurally defective applications—like improper protract recognize discount.10 fear receive "automatic" approval unfounded. "A result major litigation." U.S., admit, allowing theoretically spawn "Kafkaesque nightmare" infinite recover last round 29; Cinciarelli Reagan, 234 U.S.App.D.C. 315, 324, 729 801, 810 (1984). person actions. 883, 2253, (1989).11 applies wide range disputes equal claim.12 asserting applications, deterrent aims resurrected. general interest protecting fisc13 subordinate goals encouraging vindicate rights "curbing excessive regulation exercise authority."14 18 establishes focuses misconduct giving rise provides legislative statute reinforce our intended cover phases successful addressed statute. 19 20 ordered. 96-481, 94 2325, extension amendment, 183, authorized adjudications therefore relevant Administrative Procedure (APA), 504 seq., Judicial Code, 2412 seq. involves latter Louis 624 F.Supp. 836 (SD Fla.1985) (initial order), 646 1300 Fla.1986) (corrected memorandum after hearing), traced dozen opinions. Meissner, 530 924 Fla.1981); 532 881 Fla.1982); 544 973 1004 683 1311 1982); 711 1455 1983); 560 896 Fla.1983); 899 570 1364 727 957 1984) (en banc); 472 846, 105 2992, 86 664 (1985); 854 405 F.Supp., 837. With lack explained: "In light prior precedent advice counsel, [Immigration Naturalization Service's] refusal comply APA reasonable; nor Attorney's Office defending claiming change policy rule rulemaking requirements APA." 839. divide consideration stages: view, include phase But government pay availability size distinct 15-16 (footnote omitted). Compare 801 (1984); McDonald Secretary Health Human Services, 884 1468 (CA1 1989); Trichilo 823 702 1987); Powell Commissioner, 891 1167 (CA5 1990) (no required), Continental Web Press, NLRB, 767 321 (CA7 1985); Cornella Schweiker, 741 170 1984); National Wildlife Federation FERC, 870 542 (CA9 1989) (additional required). term means 'justified substance main'—that is, satisfy person. That different from 'reasonable law fact' adopted Ninth Circuit vast majority issue. To 'substantially justified' course, merely undeserving sanctions frivolousness." Pierce Underwood, 487 552, 565-566, 108 2541, 2550-2551, 101 (1988) (citations Congress' emphasis underlying supports evaluation conduct. H.R.Rep. 98-992, pp. 9, (1984) ("[T]he Congressional intent attorney when unjustifiable forces tries avoid liability behavior litigation"); S.Rep. 98-586, p. ("Congress recognized 'that expense correcting error rest wholly whose willingness adjudicate helped define limits Federal authority.' [H.R.Rep. 96-1418, (1980).] 'Government error' referred representatives case, led litigate"). House Report echoes finality: "When litigated adjudicative officer (or settled procedures) straightforward, already aired facts bring action. No necessary, petition purposes." 99-120, (1985), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 132, 141 (emphasis added). cursory 1989 (prior review) reveals reduced amounts requested parties. Out 502 applications 1989, 413 total $2,419,123 $1,850,906 awarded. Annual Director Courts, Fees Expenses Awarded Under 99, Table 32 (hereinafter Fees). 1941, requires consider relationship between obtained, excluded ultimately fails For example, rate paralegal resulted recalculating reducing amount, higher rate. prefaced statement findings purposes: '(a) individuals, partnerships, corporations, labor organizations deterred seeking of, against, involved securing vindication proceedings. '(b) greater resources expertise standard governing litigant, situations. '(c) title— '(1) diminish effect specified situations expert witness States; '(2) insure applicability common exceptions "American rule" respecting fees.' Findings Purposes, 504. Ninety percent involving Services. averaged $3,000 each. Fees, 100, 32. remained comfortably Budget Office's Cost Estimate 1,000 annually, averaging $6,000 each, H.Supp.Rep. pt. 2, (1985). exceptionally large (the Court's initial totaled $1 million, 1323), 1986 review, $3,821. 93, 31 (1986). $4,482. 97, 31. (1980). Committee Reports Senate reflect dual concerns access individuals improvement policies. "[T]he coerce compliance Where coerced, uncontested thoughtful presentation opposing views. fact, evidence small businesses target precisely do fully kind truncated justice undermines integrity decision-making process. "The created [the EAJA] primarily whom vindicating rights. bill rests premise chooses representing his her own vested refining formulating public policy. An adjudication concrete, adversarial test thereby insures legitimacy fairness law. adjudication, show foundation erroneous inaccurate, vehicle developing announcing precise rules. serving unfair ask finance through tax dollars bear rights." 10. "Providing represents way improve citizen When opportunity costs, does choose acquiescing detriment. By contest based litigating, helps assure decisions informed deliberation." 96-253, (1979).

Category: 5