987 F. Supp. 2d 132
D. Mass.2013Background
- Plaintiffs (same-sex military spouses) sued challenging application of Section 3 of DOMA to their benefits; they prevailed and sought EAJA fees of $170,229 plus $350 costs.
- Plaintiffs filed Oct. 27, 2011; President Obama had earlier concluded Section 3 was unconstitutional but directed the DOJ to stop defending such challenges while continuing enforcement pending judicial or congressional resolution.
- The district court stayed the case pending First Circuit decisions; the First Circuit held Section 3 unconstitutional in Massachusetts v. HHS. The stay remained pending likely Supreme Court review.
- The Supreme Court decided United States v. Windsor (2013), holding Section 3 unconstitutional; the district court then entered judgment for plaintiffs.
- The sole fee issue: whether the government’s position — continuing to enforce Section 3 (despite conceding its likely unconstitutionality) out of deference to Congress and to preserve justiciability — was "substantially justified" under the EAJA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government’s position was "substantially justified" under the EAJA | Government’s continued enforcement of Section 3 was unreasonable after executive determination of likely unconstitutionality; fees should be awarded | The Executive reasonably continued enforcement to preserve judicial review and respect separation of powers; position was substantially justified | Denied — the government’s litigating position was substantially justified given separation-of-powers considerations and Windsor’s endorsement of that approach |
| Whether the court needed to address special circumstances or excessiveness of claimed fees | Fees sought regardless; argue excessive hours only if prevailing party | Government argued special circumstances or excessive hours could preclude or reduce fees | Court did not reach these arguments because it denied fees on substantial-justification grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) (holding Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional and endorsing Executive’s position to continue enforcement to preserve justiciability)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988) (EAJA standard: government not liable for fees if its position was substantially justified)
- Massachusetts v. HHS, 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (First Circuit held Section 3 unconstitutional and stayed mandate anticipating Supreme Court review)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) (establishing judiciary’s role in declaring what the law is)