Case Explained: TORRES HERNANDEZ, ET AL. V. SU, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-25 Docket: 1:20-cv-03241-TOR The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the United States government’s position was not substantially justified under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), but reversed and remanded the fee award calculation for further proceedings. The court held that the government failed to meet its burden of showing its conduct regarding prevailing wage surveys was reasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, noting that a position violating regulations cannot be considered substantially justified. Regarding the fee reduction, the court applied the standard from *Hensley v. Eckerhart*, which requires fees to reflect the degree of success obtained, and reviewed the district court’s application of an across-the-board 75% reduction under heightened scrutiny. The court found the district court’s four-sentence explanation insufficient to justify such a significant cut given that plaintiffs secured injunctions and amendments protecting millions in wages, even though they did not achieve all goals. Consequently, the case is remanded to the district court to determine an upward adjustment of the fee award with a clear explanation considering the relationship between the results obtained and the hours expended, while costs are taxed against the federal government parties. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.