Astrue v. Ratliff

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether fee awards are paid to attorneys or to their clients.

South Dakota attorney Catherine Ratliff successfully helped her clients secure benefits from the Social Security Administration.

The district court granted her request for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, but the government reduced the fees based on debts owed by the clients.

Ratliff challenged the reduction of her fees as an illegal seizure, but the district court found that she lacked standing for the challenge because the fees were awarded to the prevailing party, rather than to the party's attorney.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that EAJA fees cannot be reduced to satisfy a prevailing party's debt owed to the government because the fees are awarded to the party's attorney.

"Were we deciding this case in the first instance, we may well agree with our sister circuits and be persuaded by a literal interpretation of the EAJA, providing that 'a court may award reasonable fees and expenses of attorneysto the prevailing party,'" wrote Judge Michael Melloy.

The decision is contrary to the holding of several other circuits

Question presented: Whether an “award of fees and other expenses” under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d), is payable to the “prevailing party” rather than to the prevailing party’s attorney, and therefore is subject to an offset for a pre-existing debt owed by the prevailing party to the United States.