Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al. v. Jean et al.
496 U.S. 154 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), a single finding that the government's position in a civil action was not 'substantially justified' entitles a prevailing party to an award of attorney's fees for the entire litigation, including for services rendered during the subsequent fee litigation phase. A second, separate finding that the government's position in the fee litigation was also not substantially justified is not required.
Facts:
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) implemented a change in its policy regarding the treatment of certain refugees.
- The INS changed this policy without following the legally required rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- A group of refugees, represented by Jean, challenged the legality of the INS's new policy in federal court.
- The challenge led to protracted litigation concerning the merits of the INS's refusal to comply with the APA.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondents (Jean, et al.) sued the INS in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- The District Court found that respondents were the 'prevailing parties' and that the government’s position on the merits was not substantially justified, making them eligible for attorney's fees under the EAJA.
- After respondents applied for fees, the government contested the amount, leading to further litigation.
- The government (petitioner) appealed the District Court's fee award to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the finding that the government's position was not substantially justified, but remanded the case for recalculation of the fee amount due to certain errors.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on the issue of fees for fee litigation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) require a court to make a second finding that the government's position was not 'substantially justified' during the fee litigation phase in order for a prevailing party to be awarded attorney's fees for services rendered during that phase?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No. The Equal Access to Justice Act does not require a second finding that the government's position was not substantially justified during the fee litigation phase. The court reasoned that the text of the EAJA treats a 'civil action' as an inclusive whole, referring to 'the position of the United States' in the singular. This indicates that only one threshold determination of substantial justification is required for the entire case. The court held that treating the case as a series of 'atomized line-items' would contradict the statutory structure and purpose, which is to eliminate the financial deterrent for individuals challenging unreasonable government action. Allowing the government to force uncompensated litigation over the fee award itself would resurrect that deterrent and dilute the value of the award, contravening congressional intent. The proper mechanism to curb exorbitant fee requests is the district court's discretion to reduce fees for unreasonably protracting the litigation, not a second substantial justification test.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the EAJA's 'substantial justification' inquiry is a one-time, threshold determination that applies to the entire civil action. It prevents the government from strategically protracting litigation by contesting fee applications, which could financially exhaust prevailing parties and undermine the statute's purpose. The ruling establishes that fee litigation is not a separate lawsuit but an integral part of the original case, ensuring that parties who successfully challenge unreasonable government conduct are fully compensated for their legal expenses. This strengthens the EAJA as a tool for holding government agencies accountable by ensuring that a victory on the merits is not negated by the cost of collecting the fee award.
Unlock the full brief for Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al. v. Jean et al.