This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Justice Alito, the case concerns whether EAJA fee awards may be paid directly to attorneys.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, the case concerns whether EAJA fee awards may be paid to trusts.
According to Justice Ginsburg, the case concerns whether EAJA fee awards may be paid to prisoners.
The case concerns whether EAJA fee awards are taxable income to the client.
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice Alito, is it true that the Commissioner of Social Security has paid EAJA awards directly to attorneys and continues to do so when the client has assigned the payment to an attorney?
According to Justice Scalia, what authority does a court have to direct that the money be paid to the attorney?
According to Justice Ginsburg, what would happen if the prevailing party were a prisoner; would the attorney fee be paid to the prisoner, and if not, to whom?
According to Chief Justice Roberts, can trusts recover EAJA fees?
What each side argues
Petitioner (Commissioner of Social Security)
According to Petitioner, eAJA provides that in an appropriate case a court shall award to a prevailing party fees and other expenses incurred by that party.
Respondent (Catherine G. Ratliff)
According to Mr. Leach, catherine Ratliff is entitled to receive the fee for the legal services she performed, which the government argued were not substantially justified.
According to Mr. Yang, eAJA applies not only in the Social Security context; it applies in all civil actions against the United States where no other specific fee provision exists.
What happened at oral argument
The matter came on for oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at 10:03 a.m.
James D. Leach presented oral argument on behalf of the respondent.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The case raises questions about who may receive EAJA fee awards.
Attorney‑fee awards are taxable income to the client.
According to Mr. Yang, eAJA applies to all civil actions against the United States where no other specific fee provision exists.
- [1] c07a27e270d598e92d15-r1-3e7c092447d7bcc7.pdf, p. 5
- [2] c07a27e270d598e92d15-r1-3e7c092447d7bcc7.pdf, p. 7
- [3] c07a27e270d598e92d15-r1-3e7c092447d7bcc7.pdf, p. 8
- [4] c07a27e270d598e92d15-r1-3e7c092447d7bcc7.pdf, p. 31
- [5] c07a27e270d598e92d15-r1-3e7c092447d7bcc7.pdf, p. 21
- [6] c07a27e270d598e92d15-r1-3e7c092447d7bcc7.pdf, p. 20
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- c07a27e270d598e92d15-r1-3e7c092447d7bcc7.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.