767 F.3d 113
1st Cir.2014Background
- McLaughlin Group challenged DOMA Section 3 as applied to military/spousal definitions; they prevailed on the merits in the First Circuit and Windsor later.”
- The government enforced but did not defend Section 3 at issue, citing executive branch duties to enforce laws while seeking judicial review.
- The district court stayed proceedings pending similar challenges and later awarded judgment for the McLaughlin Group but denied EAJA fees and costs.
- Windsor held Section 3 unconstitutional, affecting the district court’s understanding of enforcement and review.
- The district court denied EAJA fees, finding the government’s position substantially justified; it also denied costs without a detailed ruling.
- The First Circuit reviews EAJA fees decisions for abuse of discretion; the current panel affirms denial of fees and costs as substantially justified and not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EAJA fees were properly denied | McLaughlin Group argues government lacked substantial justification | Government contends its position was substantially justified | Fees denied; position substantially justified |
| Whether costs could be awarded under EAJA | Costs should be awarded separately | Costs denial was appropriate given case complexity | Costs denial affirmed as not abuse of discretion |
| How Windsor affects substantial justification analysis | Enforcement-then-defense stance was not justifiable | Windsor supports enforcement-with-review rationale | Broader government position substantially justified |
| Whether pre-litigation and during-litigation positions must align on merits | Positions show knowing rights violation | Totality of position is considered | Position assessed in totality; not meritorious to separate merits argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Windsor v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) (upheld constitutionality issues and review principles affecting EAJA analysis)
- Aronov v. Napolitano, 562 F.3d 84 (1st Cir. 2009) (deny fees where government reasonably believed actions required by law)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988) (substantial justification standard; abuse-of-discretion review)
- Sierra Club v. Sec'y of the Army, 820 F.2d 513 (1st Cir. 1987) (subjective belief not dispositive; multiple considerations)
- B. Fernández & HNOS, Inc. v. Kellogg USA, Inc., 516 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2008) (costs denial must be readily apparent on the record)
- Saysana v. Gillen, 614 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (defines substantial justification analysis and holistic evaluation)
- Castañeda-Castillo v. Holder, 723 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2013) (illustrates procedural arguments and substantial justification)