The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled against the Veterans Legal Advocacy Group (VetLAG) in their pursuit of attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). This decision, made on June 1, 2026, impacts how veterans’ advocacy groups can claim attorney fees when they seek to compel the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to take action. The ruling emphasizes the importance of a court's involvement in determining whether a party is a prevailing party in legal disputes.
The case, docketed as 24-1759, came before the court after VetLAG petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, seeking a writ of mandamus. This legal action aimed to compel the VA to correct mailing addresses for its attorneys, which the group claimed had been consistently mismanaged. The Veterans Court dismissed the petition as moot after the VA voluntarily corrected the addresses and committed to publishing a new policy for updating attorney contact information.
VetLAG's appeal stems from the Veterans Court's decision to deny their application for attorney fees, arguing they had not achieved prevailing party status. The court ruled that the group did not meet the necessary criteria to be considered a prevailing party under the EAJA, which allows for the recovery of attorney fees when a party prevails against the United States.
Background
The Veterans Legal Advocacy Group is a nonprofit organization dedicated to assisting veterans with legal issues, particularly in navigating the complexities of the VA system. In December 2020, VetLAG filed a petition with the Veterans Court, arguing that the VA had consistently sent correspondence to incorrect mailing addresses despite their efforts to update this information. The group sought a court order to compel the VA to correct the addresses and to pay damages for the errors.
During the proceedings, the VA's counsel argued that the issue was moot because the department had already taken steps to correct the mailing addresses. They also stated that they would implement a new policy to ensure attorneys could easily update their contact information in the future. The Veterans Court accepted the VA's offer to submit an affidavit confirming these corrections, which led to the dismissal of VetLAG's petition as moot.
Following the dismissal, VetLAG applied for attorney fees under the EAJA, claiming that their legal action had prompted the VA to make the necessary changes. However, the Veterans Court denied their application, stating that the group had not achieved the status of a prevailing party as defined by the EAJA.
The Ruling
The Federal Circuit Court affirmed the Veterans Court's decision, agreeing that VetLAG did not qualify as a prevailing party. The court referenced the precedent set in a previous case, Cavaciuti v. McDonough, which established that a party must receive a judicial decision or order evaluating the merits of their case to attain prevailing party status. The court stated, “Absent a ‘judicial imprimatur,’ a benefit conferred by VA—even if prompted by litigation—does not confer prevailing-party status required for entitlement to fees under EAJA.”
Judge Chen, writing for the court, emphasized that the Veterans Court’s dismissal of VetLAG’s petition did not materially alter the legal relationship between the parties. The court noted, “The November 2021 Order did not materially alter the legal relationship between the parties.” This ruling underscores the necessity of a formal court order that evaluates the merits of a case for a party to claim prevailing status.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for veterans' advocacy groups and their ability to seek attorney fees when engaging in litigation against the VA. The decision clarifies the criteria that must be met for a party to be considered a prevailing party under the EAJA. It reinforces the notion that simply prompting a change in the VA's behavior through litigation is not sufficient to claim attorney fees unless there is a court-ordered resolution that evaluates the merits of the case.
The ruling could deter advocacy groups from pursuing litigation if they believe that achieving prevailing party status is too challenging. It sets a precedent that emphasizes the need for a formal judicial determination in cases involving the VA, potentially leading to fewer claims for attorney fees under the EAJA. This may affect how veterans' organizations approach legal challenges in the future, as they consider the risks and benefits of pursuing litigation against the federal government.
What’s Next
While the Federal Circuit has affirmed the decision, VetLAG may consider further legal options, including a potential appeal to the Supreme Court. However, details regarding any related cases or further actions by VetLAG were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case could influence future litigation strategies for veterans' advocacy groups as they navigate the complexities of the legal system.