October Term 2009 · Docket 08-1322
Who receives EAJA fee awards in Social Security cases?
The dispute centers on whether courts must pay attorney fees directly to clients or if they can direct payment to the attorneys.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Yang argued the EAJA requires fee awards to prevailing parties.
Mr. Leach argued Catherine Ratliff is entitled to receive the fee.
Mr. Leach stated Congress invited her to prove the government was wrong.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 13-23 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 13-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 49-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-5 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Equal Access to Justice Act mandates fee awards to prevailing parties. The government argues courts can pay attorneys directly. The client argues the statute requires payment to the party.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-29
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 22, 2010.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-17
What each side wants
The government wants courts to pay attorneys directly.
The client wants the court to pay her directly.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-29
What each side says
The government argues the statute allows direct payment to attorneys.
The client argues the statute mandates payment to the prevailing party.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-29
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked if the client must transfer the funds.
Justice Ginsburg asked where the contract between party and attorney exists.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 13-23 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 13-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 49-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-5 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-9
Why it matters
This case determines who controls legal fee payments in federal litigation. It affects how attorneys receive compensation for successful government cases. It impacts the financial relationship between clients and their lawyers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-29
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 13-23 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 13-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 49-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 49-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 29-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 29-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-5 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-29 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-29
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.