Wilderness Society v. Babbitt 5 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 1993) The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was allowing grazing in the Hart Mountain Wildlife Refuge even though there was evidence that the grazing was harming wild animals in the Refuge. FWS had been considering a management plan for how to use the Refuge's resources for a while, but hadn't come up with a complete plan. In the meanwhile they kept renewing grazing permits. They had not even written an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Environmental groups (led by the Wilderness Society) sued for an injunction. Wilderness Society argued that FWS was required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other Statutes to write an EIS and develop a management plan. The FWS and Wilderness Society settled the case. As part of the settlement, FWS agreed to prepare an EIS and a compatibility determination, and to refrain from issuing any grazing permits until thirty days after the adoption of a management plan. Wilderness Society asked for attorney's fees. The Trial Court denied the motion. Wilderness Society appealed. The Trial Court found that the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) (28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A)) provides that a court shall award attorneys' fees to a "prevailing party" in a civil action brought against the United States "unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make the award unjust." FWS argued that even though they were non-compliant with NEPA they had been working towards compliance, so they were substantially justified. The Appellate Court reversed and awarded attorney's fees. The Appellate Court found that Wilderness Society was the prevailing party. The Court found that FWS's actions were not substantially justified. The Court found that there was an affirmative duty to go out and determine if the refuge was being managed properly.