Also known as: substantial justification · EAJA substantial justification
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard requiring that a position, certification, or government action rest on a reasonable basis in both law and fact.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sasha Stone's counsel signed broad production requests in a contract dispute without checking whether the requested documents existed in the client's files. The opposing party moved for sanctions under the certification rule. The court found the certification lacked a reasonable basis in fact and imposed an award of expenses because the position was not substantially justified.
Summit Bank hired an out-of-state lawyer who sought admission to practice in the state where the bank maintained its headquarters. The state bar denied admission solely because the lawyer resided across the border. The court held the residency requirement violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause because the state offered no substantial justification beyond speculation about availability and competence.
Samantha Stone, licensed in her home state, applied for admission by motion in an adjacent state that required five years of in-state practice for nonresidents. The state offered no evidence that nonresidents posed greater risks to clients or the public. The court struck the requirement because the state failed to supply substantial justification for the discriminatory rule.
Sofia Stern prevailed against the United States in a civil action and sought fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The district court found the government's litigating position substantially justified and denied the fee request. On appeal the circuit court reviewed that determination for abuse of discretion, confirming that the reasonable-basis standard controlled the outcome.
Silverline Industries challenged an agency rule that imposed new compliance costs. The agency defended its position as substantially justified by the administrative record. The reviewing court applied the abuse-of-discretion standard to the agency's determination that its litigating stance rested on a reasonable basis in law and fact.
Solomon Silver's union sued to enforce a collective-bargaining agreement in federal court. The employer argued that state law alone governed the claim and that federal jurisdiction lacked substantial justification. The court rejected the argument because the federal statute supplied an independent basis for treating the contract as enforceable in federal court.
A certification lacks substantial justification when the signer fails to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual and legal basis for the request, response, or objection. Blanket burden objections signed without checking readily available company records or prior compilations of the same data illustrate the violation. The court must impose sanctions once it finds the certification improper and without substantial justification.
Supporting sources
…That this "protective" theory was not adopted by Chief Justice Marshall at a time when conditions might have presented more substantial justification strongly suggests its lack of constitutional merit. Moreover, Congress in its consideration of § 301 nowhere suggested dissatisfaction with the ability of state courts to administer state…
…of the evidence. Here, the Court of Appeals determined that the District Court "applied the correct legal standard and offered substantial justification
…mandated by Rule 11”); Pierce , 487 U. S., at 562 (“[T]he question whether the Government’s litigating position has been ‘substantially justified
No. The standard asks only whether the position has a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it is taken. A colorable argument supported by the record satisfies the test even if the court later rejects the argument on the merits.
Supporting sources
The government bears the burden of proving that its position was substantially justified. The prevailing party need only allege that the position lacked substantial justification. The government must then demonstrate a reasonable basis in law and fact on the record of the civil action.
Supporting sources
Speculative assertions that nonresidents will not keep abreast of local rules or perform pro bono work do not supply substantial justification. The state must show a concrete, evidence-based reason why the discriminatory rule is necessary to protect clients or the public.
Supporting sources
No. Courts review the determination for abuse of discretion because the inquiry is fact-bound and little susceptible to useful generalization. The district court is better positioned to marshal the record and apply the reasonable-basis standard.
Supporting sources