Astrue v. Ratliff
- Decided
- June 14, 2010
- Docket
- 08-1322
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 6,704 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a “§ 2412(d) fees award is payable 21 to the litigant” not the attorney — Hopkins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (2023)
- holding that the EAJA fee is payable to plaintiff and is subject to offset to satisfy any pre-existing debt plaintiff may owe the United States — Hansen v. Saul (2020)
- holding that a section 2412(d) fee award is payable to the litigant, not to his or her attorney — George Roseberry v. Denis McDonough (2023)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 204(d) of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), codified in 28 U. S. C. § 2412(d), provides in pertinent part that “a court shall award to a prevailing party . . . fees and other expenses ... in any civil action . . . brought by or against the United States . . . unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified.” [*589] We consider whether an award of “fees and other expenses” to a “prevailing party” under § 2412(d) is payable to the litigant or to his attorney. We hold that a § 2412(d) fees award is payable to the litigant and is therefore subject to a Government offset to satisfy a pre-existing debt that the litigant owes the United States.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.