LIMITATIONS OF THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT
ARE SO GREAT AS TO DENY EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE
Dear U.S. Citizen:
Congress enacted the EQUAL ACCESS to JUSTICE ACT of 1948, as amended, (EAJA),to encourage lawyers to undertake litigation to vindicate constitutional and statutory rights of those individuals who could not otherwise afford to vindicate those rights. (June 25, 1948 ch 646 ' 1, 62 Stat. 971) The purpose of EAJA is to insure that people would not be deterred from seeking review of, or defending against, unreasonable governmental action because of the expense involved in pursuing their rights.
EAJA accomplishes this purpose by providing for the recovery of costs and attorneys fees etc. to prevailing parties in actions or proceedings against government or their officials, under specified circumstances. Essentially, the government waives its sovereign immunity in those specified circumstances.
EAJA limits recovery of costs and attorneys fees etc. to specified administrative proceedings. Only those administrative proceedings where: (1) they were to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing, by law; (2) they were not one of the statutory exceptions; (3) the government was represented by an attorney; (4) the position of the agency was not substantially justified; (5) there were not special circumstances; (6) they were subject to the Administrative Procedures Act; (7) and, the party prevails; are subject to EAJA. (5 USCS " 504 and 554; Ardestani v. INS, 502 US 129, 112 S.Ct. 515 (1991))
EAJA limits recovery of costs and attorney fees etc. to specified legal actions. Only those legal actions where: (1) they were not sounding in tort; (2) they were not one of the statutory exceptions; (3) the position of the government was not substantially justified; (4) there were not special circumstances; and, (5) the party prevails; are subject to EAJA. (28 USCS ' 2412; Pierce v. Underwood et al., 487 US 552, 108 S.Ct. 2541 (1988))
EAJA limits attorney fees to $125 per hour, without some justification for a higher fee. (Baldi Bros. Constructors v. US, 52 Fed. Cl. 78 (2002)) Justification for a higher fee is limited to cases where specialized attorneys are required.
Equal Access to Justice, Inc. submits that these limitations, effectively, countermand the purpose of EAJA and thereby deny equal access to justice to the people of the United States.
|
Sincerely,
Walter H. Eason, Jr.
President/CEO
March 15, 2005 |
|
 © 2010 Equal Access to Justice, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Search | Links | Contact Us | Tax Exemption Letter | Home |
