Astrue v. Ratliff

Background

Ruby Willows Kills Ree, a Social Security claimant, won benefits after suing the federal agency. Her lawyer, Catherine Ratliff, sought payment of attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The District Court awarded $2,112.60 in EAJA fees, but before payment the Government discovered that Ree owed a preexisting federal debt and sought to use the fees to offset that debt. Ratliff intervened, arguing the fees belong to attorneys. Lower courts split on the question and the Supreme Court reviewed the issue.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether EAJA’s language that courts “shall award to a prevailing party ... fees and other expenses” means the fees belong to the winning litigant or to the lawyer. Relying on the statute’s wording, related EAJA provisions, and prior cases with similar language, the Court concluded that “prevailing party” is the litigant. A fees award is a court’s decision that creates a right to payment for the litigant; the attorney’s payment interest arises by contract or assignment, not by EAJA. Because the award belongs to the litigant, the Government may apply administrative offset to satisfy the litigant’s federal debts.

Real world impact

The ruling lets the Government use EAJA fee awards to pay preexisting federal debts, a change that affects many Social Security claimants and the lawyers who represent them. It may reduce attorneys’ willingness to take low‑fee cases and could weaken access to court remedies for people of limited means. The Court did not decide whether Treasury’s 2005 regulation exempts particular fee payments from offset because that argument was not raised below; that issue may arise later.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, concurred in the judgment and text‑based result but warned that allowing offsets undermines EAJA’s purpose of ensuring access to counsel and urged Congress to clarify whether offsets should apply.