Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. United States Department of Homeland Security, 857 F.3d 907

Background

Washtech (a technology workers’ union) sued DHS challenging the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program and the 2008 rule extending OPT for STEM students; several claims were dismissed for lack of standing and others proceeded.
The district court held DHS exceeded no statutory authority but found DHS waived notice-and-comment for the 2008 OPT Rule, vacated the rule, and stayed vacatur to allow DHS to re-propose the rule.
DHS issued a replacement 2016 OPT Rule during appeal; this court held the appeal moot. Washtech then moved for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
The district court found Washtech a prevailing party under EAJA but largely denied fees for post-merits work, denied fees for Washtech’s appeal (because it produced no appellate victory), denied travel costs for Senate testimony, and reduced the remainder to 15% of the requested amount for limited success, duplication, and poor billing detail.
Washtech appealed the fee reductions; the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s discretionary reductions and denials, but Judge Kavanaugh dissented, arguing the vacatur outcome alone justified full fee recovery for successful work.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of recoverable EAJA fees when plaintiff prevailed on only one claim	Washtech: fees for whole litigation are compensable because alternative claims sought the same relief (vacatur) and the result is what matters (Hensley).	DHS: fees limited to work reasonably related to the successful claim; unsuccessful claims and later activity that produced no success are not compensable.	Court: District court did not abuse discretion; may deny fees for work after the Merits Opinion and for unsuccessful claims when success was limited.
Fees for mootified appeal to D.C. Circuit	Washtech: appellate work produced a favorable change and thus should be compensated.	DHS: appellant did not ‘prevail’ on appeal because the appeal was moot and produced no appellate relief.	Court: Fees properly denied for appeal; a mooted appeal does not make appellant a prevailing party for EAJA.
Reimbursement for counsel travel to testify before Senate	Washtech: travel was related to the litigation interests.	DHS: Senate testimony had no impact on the litigation.	Court: District court reasonably denied travel costs as unrelated to litigation.
Across-the-board reduction for limited success, duplication, and deficient billing	Washtech: reduction was arbitrary because success (vacatur) achieved plaintiff's objective; alternative arguments should not be penalized.	DHS: reduction appropriate because relief obtained was limited, many claims failed, billing showed duplication and insufficient detail.	Court: District court reasonably reduced award (15%) for limited success, unnecessary duplication, and poor documentation.

Key Cases Cited

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (fee awards must be reasonable; when limited success, fees should be reduced accordingly)
Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (1990) (party must ‘prevail’ to recover fees; mooted appeals do not create prevailing-party status)
Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (prevailing party requires judicially sanctioned change in legal relationship)
Okla. Aerotronics, Inc. v. United States, 943 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (district court discretion in trimming fee claims)
Truckers United for Safety v. Mead, 329 F.3d 891 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (EAJA awards reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Role Models Am., Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (reducing fees for duplication and deficient time entries is appropriate)
George Hyman Constr. Co. v. Brooks, 963 F.2d 1532 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (reasonableness of time expended is a relevant consideration)
Kennecott Corp. v. EPA, 804 F.2d 763 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (fee awards may be discounted for poor documentation)