Western Watersheds Project v. United States Department of the Interior
677 F.3d 922
9th Cir.2012Background
- WWP challenged BLM grazing permits for 68 allotments in the Owyhee Resource Area, Idaho.
- In 1997 WWP filed suit in district court asserting NEPA violations; a 2000 injunction ordered new NEPA analysis.
- BLM’s 2003 Nickel Creek Final Decision proposed ten-year permits with nonmandatory guidelines and an EA/FONSI.
- WWP administrative appealed; ALJ ruled in WWP’s favor in 2007, but IBLA reversed in 2008.
- WWP challenged IBLA’s decision under APA; district court granted partial summary judgment in 2009 finding IBLA arbitrary and remanded.
- WWP sought EAJA/§ 2412(d) fees for both administrative appeals and district court work; district court awarded $183,160 for administrative work, which the Government appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Government waived challenge on fees. | WWP relies on Government's district-court briefing and ruling. | Government raised the issue sufficiently for district court to rule. | Not waived; appeal proper on the merits. |
| Whether EAJA § 2412(d)(1)(A) allows fees for administrative proceedings when no pending district action. | Hudson allows fees for administratives tied to district action. | Hudson is narrow; no pending district action here. | District court erred; admin fees not awardable. |
| Whether Hudson and subsequent cases require district court to order and retain jurisdiction for fees to administrative proceedings. | Administrative work closely ties to district action; should be compensable. | Hudson’s scenario does not apply; administrative proceedings not ordered in pending action. | Narrow Hudson framework applies; fees must be excluded unless conditions met. |
| What is the proper disposition of the fee award upon vacatur? | Award should stand for both administrative and district work. | Award must be reduced to exclude administrative-proceeding fees. | Vacate and remand to exclude $183,160 for administrative proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877 (1989) (set narrow rule for EAJA fees for administrative proceedings tied to remand)
- Hudson, 490 U.S. 877 (1989) (administrative work recoverable only when closely tied to court-ordered action and pending action)
- Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991) (strictly construes EAJA against the United States, limits when admin fees are recoverable)
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993) (remands without ongoing district jurisdiction exclude EAJA administrative fees)
- Native Village of Quinhagak v. United States, 307 F.3d 1075 (2002) (ANILCA context; district court discretion to award pre-litigation admin fees varies by statute)
- Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d 906 (2009) (EAJA fees denied for pre-litigation administrative immigration proceedings)
- Mendenhall v. Nat’l Trans. Safety Bd., 213 F.3d 464 (2000) (limits Hudson to narrow class where civil action persists and remand is contemplated)
- Western Watersheds Project v. Interior Bd. of Land Appeals, 624 F.3d 983 (2010) (circumstance-specific ruling on fee eligibility for administrative proceedings in grazing permit context)
- Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, 307 F.3d 815 (2002) (NEPA/related challenges to BLM grazing permits; Ninth Circuit ruling discussed in fee context)