Court Opinion

ID: 9483531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:23:19.223068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:40.599599
License: Public Domain

WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The majority’s decision effectively requires future district courts awarding attorney’s fees under the EAJA either to grant a cost-of-living increase or to explain on the record why such an increase will not be granted. I am of opinion that such a requirement is contrary to our rule that the decision whether to award an hourly rate in excess of the statutory maximum rate in light of an increase in the cost of living rests within the sound discretion of the district court. Further, a remand in the instant case unnecessarily assumes that the district court was entirely unaware of the statute in question and of the argument of the parties. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
In May v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 176 (4th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 60 U.S.L.W. 3478 (U.S.1992), we squarely held that a district court does not abuse its discretion by declining to grant a cost-of-living adjustment to the statutory maximum hourly rate even when such an adjustment is requested and supported by evidence of an increase in the Consumer Price Index since the EAJA’s enactment in 1981. There we noted that “Congress is quite capable of requiring mandatory fee increases to account for changes in the Consumer Price Index and, as [EAJA section 2412(d)(2)(A) ] shows, this it has not done.” May, 936 F.2d at 178.
Notwithstanding our decision in May, the majority relies on cases from other circuits that take a decidedly -different view of when a district court should increase an award under the EAJA to account for increases in the cost of living. As the majority recites, in Baker v. Bowen, 839 F.2d 1075, 1084 (5th Cir.1988), the Fifth Circuit stated that “[ejxcept in unusual circumstances ... if there is a significant difference in the cost of living since 1981 in a particular locale that would justify an increase in the fee, then an increase should be granted.” Similarly, the Ninth Circuit indeed has stated its opinion that “[t]o withhold an inflation adjustment without reason would undermine the purpose of the EAJA to remove the financial disincentive to challenge wrongful government action.” Animal Lovers Volunteer Ass’n v. Carlucci, 867 F.2d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir.1989). Whatever the law as stated in those decisions may be, they simply do not reflect the law in this circuit as established in May.* I would accordingly caution against any suggestion that the majority’s decision today in any way compels district courts presumptively to award cost-of-living increases to a fee award at the statutory maximum rate of $75 per hour.
Finally, the majority’s decision requires that district courts declining to grant a cost-of-living increase hereafter must state on the record their reasons for doing so. I am of opinion that this new requirement serves no useful purpose and simply forces district courts to utter what are commonly referred to as magic words — i.e., an ac-knowledgement that the court is aware of its discretion to grant- a cost-of-living increase and is choosing not to exercise that discretion — when awarding fees under the EAJA. We should strive to avoid such hollow formalities whenever possible, as they burden the district courts without any corresponding benefit. I think it only proper to assume that a judge of the United *905States District Court is aware of his discretion under the EAJA in this respect, especially when both parties vigorously argue the cost-of-living issue in their submissions to the district court, as was the case here and is shown conclusively in the Appendix at p. 4-14 for the plaintiff, and p. 15-22 for the Secretary.
I would therefore find no cause for remand and would affirm the judgment of the district court.

 Our recent decision in Sullivan v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 574 (4th Cir.1992), is not to the contrary. The passage quoted by the majority only acknowledges that the maximum hourly rate that may be awarded, absent "special factors," is the present day equivalent of $75 in 1981 dollars. Sullivan in no way suggests that a district court must award that maximum rate as a matter of course, or that the court must offer any explanation for its decision not to do so. See Sullivan, 958 F.2d at 578.