Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness v. Thomas

A federal wilderness statute required the Forest Service to end motorized portages in a protected area unless the agency found no feasible nonmotorized alternative existed. After a feasibility study concluded nonmotorized portaging was possible but not "feasible" given health and safety risks, the Forest Service Chief (defendant) kept the motorized portages, and Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness (plaintiff) successfully challenged that decision on appeal, with the court of appeals finding the Chief's reading of "feasible" overly restrictive and contrary to clear congressional intent. Friends then sought attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, but the district court denied fees, reasoning that Congress's silence on the meaning of "feasible" made it impossible to say the Chief's position wasn't substantially justified, relying partly on its own earlier opinion and a dissent from the merits appeal.