New Jersey v. Environmental Protection Agency
398 U.S. App. D.C. 343
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Tribal Intervenors sought fees under Clean Air Act §307(f) after EPA mercury rules were vacated in New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C.Cir. 2008).
- Intervenors argued they should recover costs because they contributed alternative arguments aiding the case’s resolution.
- EPA argued intervenors were ineligible for fee shifting and that the requested fees were excessive.
- Court held intervenors merit a fee award but remanded for mediation to determine the amount via the Appellate Mediation Program.
- Dissent by Brown would deny fees, criticizing the broadened discretion of §307(f) and urging a narrow role for intervenors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tribal Intervenors are eligible for fees under §307(f). | Tribal Intervenors are eligible; they contributed to the case. | Intervenors’ role does not meet eligibility; they did not affect outcome. | Yes, they are eligible for fees. |
| Whether the amount of fees should be decided now. | Intervenors’ substantial fees should be awarded as requested. | Amount should be reduced; not all hours are reasonable. | Direct to Appellate Mediation Program for amount. |
| Did Tribal Intervenors’ alternative grounds aid the litigation sufficiently to warrant fees? | Arguments aided proper administration/interpretation of the Act. | Some arguments were tangential and duplicative. | Yes, their contribution was sufficiently helpful. |
| Should the court balance intervenors’ role against potential waste or duplicative effort? | Intervenors prevented waste by offering distinct bases. | Duplicative or non-dispositive arguments may be wasteful. | Court endorses consideration of efficiency via mediation; no automatic denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Donnell v. United States, 682 F.2d 240 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (intervenor on behalf of government; fees denied for lack of substance)
- Alabama Power Co. v. Gorsuch, 672 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (fee denied where intervenor made no unique contribution)
- American Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 72 F.3d 907 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (awarded fees for multiple defenses supporting invalidity; not all arguments must win)
- Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680 (S. Ct. 1983) (broad fee authority; not all victories justify fees; substantial merit required)
- Kennecott Corp. v. EPA, 804 F.2d 763 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (no automatic fee reduction for unlitigated grounds; context matters)
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 322 F.3d 718 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (intervenors’ contributions may support fee awards when beneficial to administration of the Act)
- Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington, 633 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1980) (recognized intervention can be rewarded where participation aids litigation; phase-based awards)
- Shaw v. Hunt, 154 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 1998) (fee awarded to intervenors with active role despite not prevailing on all issues)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (limits on fee recovery for non-merits-based arguments)