Court Opinion

ID: 9437792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 04:48:20.84301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:03.125794
License: Public Domain

HARTZ, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result. I add only one comment.
In its discussion of the attorney-fee award, the panel opinion errs in paying lip service to a public-interest element. A party seeking attorney fees under § 304(d) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d), need not make a separate showing that it is serving the public interest. Courts should simply follow the rule that “a prevailing plaintiff should ordinarily recover an attorney’s fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). Al-thought Hensley was interpreting the attorney-fee provision in 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the Supreme Court has said that “[gjiven the common purpose of both § 304(d) and § 1988 to promote citizen enforcement of important federal policies, we find no reason not to interpret both provisions governing attorney’s fees in the same manner.” Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 560, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986).