Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Robert Holman v. Brooke L. Rollins, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 23-5493 · judgment September 23, 2024
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Questions presented
Robert Holman obtained a preliminary injunction against a racially discriminatory debt-relief program of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). After the program was repealed, Holman entered into a stipulated agreement to dismiss his action, based on representations that he could seek attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). EAJA allows prevailing parties in actions against the federal government to recover attorney’s fees, so long as the government’s position was “not substantially justified.” App. 98a. In determining the government’s justification, however, lower courts are divided over how much weight to place on an agency’s unreasonable pre-litigation conduct (the policy being challenged in the case). Some circuits place “substantial” or “dispositive” weight on such conduct. That was not so here. Below, the Sixth Circuit did not emphasize the USDA’s discriminatory policies at all. Instead, the panel deemed the government’s position substantially justified, relying primarily on the government’s professionalism in court and its success dismissing two ancillary claims. The questions presented in this petition are:
-
May the federal government rely on its litigation conduct to establish that its position is “substantially justified” under EAJA, when its pre-litigation conduct was objectively unreasonable?
-
Did the Sixth Circuit err in holding that the government’s position was substantially justified, given the strict scrutiny standard applicable to race discrimination?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
William E. Trachman
Mountain States Legal Foundation
For respondent
D. John Sauer
Solicitor General
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Amicus briefs
1 cert-stage
Proceedings
- Jan 16 2026Judgment Issued.
- Dec 15 2025Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Lackey v. Stinnie, 604 U. S. 192 (2025).
- Nov 25 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/12/2025.
- Nov 19 2025Reply of petitioner Robert Holman filed.
- Nov 05 2025Brief of respondents Brooke L. Rollins, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, et al. filed.
- Oct 02 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including November 5, 2025.
- Sep 30 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 6, 2025 to November 5, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Sep 05 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including October 6, 2025.
- Sep 04 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 4, 2025 to October 6, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Aug 04 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including September 4, 2025.
- Aug 01 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 6, 2025 to September 4, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jun 11 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 6, 2025.
- Jun 10 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 7, 2025 to August 6, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jun 06 2025Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.
- Jun 06 2025Response Requested. (Due July 7, 2025)
- Jun 03 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/18/2025.
- May 29 2025Waiver of right of respondent Rollins, Brooke, et al. to respond filed.
- May 05 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 6, 2025)