For years, the Ninth Circuit published the Statutory Maximum Rates based on Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876–77 (9th Cir. 2005). The calculated rates are:
|
Worked
performed in |
Hourly
Rate |
|
2025 |
$258.46 |
|
2024 |
$251.84 |
|
2023 |
$244.62 |
|
2022 |
$234.95 |
|
2021 |
$217.54 |
|
2020 |
$207.78 |
|
2019 |
$205.25 |
|
2018 |
$201.60 |
|
2017 |
$196.79 |
|
2016 |
$192.68 |
|
2015 |
$190.28 |
Notice the URL: https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/criminal-justice-act/statutory-maximum-rates/. The page that the maximum rate is attached to is criminal-justice-act. Odd. The CJA page does not have natural navigation to the maximum rate page. Using the search bar does lead to the maximum rate page with the URL cited. But a user of the Ninth Circuit web page will not find the maximum rate page by navigation.
Nor will users find the guides to different substantive areas of law. The court formerly published a Social Security, Immigration, and other guides. The court provided WestLaw hyperlinks in case citations. Just gone.
With the disappearance of the natural navigation, I question whether the page appended to the CJA page is intended as guidance. It is clearly not law or binding precedent, nor was it ever intended to be. Law is a statute, regulation, or published case. A web page maintained by court staff or even a single judge is not the authoritative statement of the court in a reported decision. I submit that attorneys seeking EAJA fees should resort to the statutory method described by Thangaraja; use the published CPI-U.
The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumer (CPI-U) (not seassonally adjusted) (partially redacted for clarity) states:
|
ALL
ITEMS |
|||
|
May |
Dec |
|
|
|
Consumer
Price Index |
|
||
|
2016 |
|
241.432 |
|
|
2017 |
|
246.524 |
|
|
2018 |
|
251.233 |
|
|
2019 |
|
256.974 |
|
|
2020 |
|
260.474 |
|
|
2021 |
|
278.802 |
|
|
2022 |
|
296.797 |
|
|
2023 |
|
306.746 |
|
|
2024 |
|
315.605 |
|
|
2025 |
|
324.054 |
|
|
2026 |
335.123 |
|
|
The CPI-U in March 1996 was 155.7. Using ((year CPI-U)/(155.7))*$125 as the basic formula, the EAJA rates should be:
These hourly rates are higher than those found on the now unsupported maximum rate page. Ramon-Sepulveda v. INS, 863 F.2d 1458, 1463 (9th Cir. 1988); Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140, 1147-49 (9th Cir.2001); and Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876-77 (9th Cir. 2005) are clear, use the March 1996 CPI-U as the denominator and the most current (or end of year) CPI-U for the numerator multiplied by $125. This is not a legal problem, it is a math problem. The current answer is $269 per hour. If you are litigating in the federal courts and represent a prevailing otherwise qualifying party, you deserve to get paid and your client deserves an offset or reimbursement at the highest permissible rate under the statute. Failing to ask for the highest rate does your client a disservice in the long run.
The hourly rate is $269. Use it.
___________________________
Suggested Citation:
Lawrence Rohlfing, CPI-U, the EAJA, and the Ninth Circuit "Maximum Rates", California Social Security Attorney (June 27, 2026) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com
The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.
