## Facts

- Environmental and public-interest organizations challenged aspects of the U.S. Forest Service’s 1986 management plan for the Superior National Forest and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW).
- Two disputed components were (1) continued use of motorized portages in the BWCAW and (2) projected timber harvest levels and an increase in below-cost timber sales in the Superior National Forest.
- In earlier merits litigation, the organizations ultimately succeeded on appeal on the motorized-portage issue; the court held the agency’s interpretation of “feasible” under the BWCAW Act conflicted with the statute’s plain meaning and congressional intent.
- After merits-stage success, the organizations sought attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) for work on both issues.
- The district court denied EAJA fees for the motorized-portage issue, finding the government’s position substantially justified because Congress did not define “feasible.”
- The district court awarded EAJA fees for the below-cost timber-sales issue.
- The organizations appealed the denial of fees on the portage issue; the government cross-appealed the fee award on the timber issue.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court applied the correct “substantially justified” standard under EAJA in denying fees on the motorized-portage dispute.
2. Whether the government’s position on the below-cost timber-sales dispute was substantially justified, such that the district court erred in awarding EAJA fees (and, if not, whether the award’s scope was proper).

## Decision

- Reversed the denial of EAJA fees on the motorized-portage issue and remanded for an award of fees on that issue.
- Partially affirmed the EAJA fee award on the below-cost timber-sales issue, while limiting or modifying the scope of the award.
- Emphasized that attorney’s-fee litigation should not become a second major litigation.

## Legal Principles

- Under EAJA, a prevailing party is entitled to fees unless the government proves its position was “substantially justified.”
- “Substantially justified” means a position with a reasonable basis in both law and fact; the government bears the burden of proof.
- When an agency’s statutory interpretation has been held contrary to plain statutory text and clear congressional intent, the government faces a heavy burden to show substantial justification for EAJA purposes.
- Fee awards may be adjusted to reflect the proper scope of compensable work, and courts should manage EAJA disputes to avoid disproportionate satellite litigation.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held that the government failed to show substantial justification for its motorized-portage position after the merits ruling rejected the agency’s construction as contrary to plain meaning and congressional intent, requiring an EAJA fee award; it also upheld fees related to the below-cost timber-sales litigation in part but narrowed the award’s scope.


Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness v. Thomas, 53 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 1995)