At the Supreme Court, the Justice Dept. Fights a Navy Vet's $35K Fee Request
The dispute confronts provisions of the Equal Access to Justice Act, a law that allows "prevailing party" plaintiffs in certain instances to recoup litigation fees in cases involving federal agencies.
April 02, 2020 at 02:50 PM
5 minute read
The Trump administration's Justice Department is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a Vietnam veteran's attempt to collect $35,000 in legal fees for his landmark court victory opening potentially billions of dollars in Agent Orange benefits to thousands of so-called "blue water" Navy service members.
Alfred Procopio, represented by retired Navy Cmdr. John Wells of Slidell, Louisiana, is asking the justices to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that said he is not entitled to fees and costs under the federal Equal Access to Justice Act. The en banc court in September sided with the Justice Department in a one-line summary decision rejecting Procopio's fee request.
Procopio's fee request involves provisions of the Equal Access to Justice Act, a law that allows "prevailing party" plaintiffs in certain instances to recoup litigation fees in cases involving federal agencies.
Procopio sought legal fees after his victory in January 2019 in the case Procopio v. Wilkie. The Federal Circuit, ruling 9-2, said for the first time that the Agent Orange Act of 1991 and its presumption of exposure to the chemical herbicide applies to Navy veterans who served on ships within the 12-mile territorial sea of the Republic of Vietnam. The Justice Department had argued those benefits applied only to soldiers on land or inland waterways.
The benefits potentially owed to roughly 90,000 vets have been estimated to cost the government more than $1 billion over 10 years.
The Equal Access to Justice Act permits an award of fees when the government's litigation position was not "substantially justified." In his Supreme Court petition, Wells heavily relied on a concurring opinion written by Judge Kathleen O'Malley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The judge said that although she was bound by Supreme Court and circuit precedents to rule against Procopio, the disabled Vietnam vet was "the very type of prevailing party, moreover, for whom Congress enacted the EAJA."
O'Malley said "the governing interpretation of 'substantially justified' sets the bar far too low for the government in a way that is contrary to the plain text of the EAJA and its underlying purpose."
In the Justice Department's brief opposing Procopio's petition, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco said the justices have interpreted the term "substantially justified" to mean "'justified in substance or in the main'—that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person."
The central issue in the merits case before the Federal Circuit was the interpretation of service "in the Republic of Vietnam" in order to establish the federal Agent Orange Act's presumption of service connection and benefits eligibility. Although the appellate court disagreed with the government's decades-long interpretation that the 1991 act covered only those veterans who served on the ground or inland waterways, Francisco wrote, that was not the only reasonable way to read the statutory language.
It was "reasonable," Francisco argued, for the government "to rely on the ordinary understanding of the term 'Republic of Vietnam,' rather than on the specialized, international-law-based construction that the en banc court ultimately adopted."
In its 2019 decision, the Federal Circuit majority, led by Judge Kimberly Moore, said that the intent of Congress was clear from its use of the term "in the Republic of Vietnam," in the Agent Orange Act, "which all available international law unambiguously confirms includes its territorial sea." The majority also overruled the court's 2008 decision in Haas v. Peake.
The Haas court, Moore said, "went astray" when it found ambiguity in the Agent Orange Act, an ambiguity injected into the regulations by the government after the act was adopted. Mel Bostwick, partner in Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, argued pro bono on behalf of Procopio.
Francisco also rejected Procopio's argument that the legal-fee standard should be more demanding for the government in veteran benefits cases because of Congress's command that benefits to members of the Armed Forces are to be construed in the beneficiaries' favor.
"If Congress had intended that attorney's fees be more readily available to prevailing veterans than to other persons who litigate against the government, it could have enacted a separate attorney's-fee provision specifically governing veterans'-benefits cases," Francisco wrote.
Under the Supreme Court's rules, Procopio may file a reply brief addressing the government's arguments.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDemocrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
'Radical Left Judges'?: Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden's Judicial Picks
4 minute readHolland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250