Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
202 F. Supp. 3d 20
D.D.C.2016Background
- WashTech sued DHS in 2014 challenging DHS’s OPT program and a 2008 Rule that extended STEM OPT from 12 to 29 months (and later amendments), alleging procedural and substantive violations.
- The district court dismissed several claims for lack of standing and rejected WashTech’s main substantive claim that DHS exceeded statutory authority, but found DHS lacked good cause to bypass notice-and-comment rulemaking for the 2008 Rule.
- The court vacated the 2008 Rule (staying vacatur for six months to avoid a regulatory gap); DHS later proposed and then finalized a replacement rule extending STEM OPT further.
- WashTech sought EAJA fees of $465,002.62 (including appellate work); DHS contested prevailing-party status, substantial justification, and the amount sought.
- The court held WashTech a prevailing party for purposes of EAJA because it secured vacatur and the opportunity to comment, and concluded DHS was not substantially justified in invoking good cause to avoid notice-and-comment.
- Because WashTech’s success was limited and its billing showed duplication and poor documentation, the court awarded 15% of pre-judgment fees and expenses: $42,239.59.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing party under EAJA | WashTech secured vacatur of the 2008 Rule and thus prevailed | DHS argued vacatur was neutralized by later rulemaking and appellate mootness | WashTech is a prevailing party; vacatur and opportunity to comment suffice despite replacement rule and later appellate mootness |
| Substantial justification for bypassing notice-and-comment | DHS had no substantial justification; agency delayed and failed to show emergency | DHS argued urgent economic harm and non-frivolous basis for good-cause exception | DHS not substantially justified: delay undermined claimed emergency; good-cause narrow and narrowly construed |
| Scope of compensable fees under Hensley | All interrelated claims justify full fee recovery; segregation is not feasible | Only fees reasonably related to successful notice-and-comment claim should be awarded | Because success was limited and claims interrelated, fees must be reduced to reflect degree of success; appellate and unrelated costs denied |
| Reasonableness of requested fees | Time and rates are reasonable; cannot precisely segregate time between claims | Billing shows duplication, block billing, unnecessary staffing; reductions needed | Court reduced award for poor documentation, unnecessary duplication, and limited success; awarded 15% of pre-judgment fees and expenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988) (defines "substantially justified" standard)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (prevailing-party requirement: judicially sanctioned change in legal relationship)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (fee awards must be reasonable in relation to results obtained)
- Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401 (2004) (government bears burden to show substantial justification)
- Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 716 F.2d 915 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (agency delay defeats claimed good-cause emergency)
- Waterman S.S. Corp. v. Maritime Subsidy Bd., 901 F.2d 1119 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (definition of prevailing party)