In the case of Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security v. Catherine G. Ratliff, 2009, the U.S Supreme Court had to decide who should receive attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) when a litigant wins a case against the government - whether it should be paid directly to attorneys or plaintiffs? The court ruled in favor of Ratliff stating that EAJA awards belong initially to litigants and not their lawyers. This means that if there is any debt owed by plaintiffs towards federal government then those debts can be offset with these awarded fees before they are passed on to attorneys.

In the dissenting opinion for Astrue v. Ratliff, Justice Sotomayor argued that the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) awards should be made directly to attorneys rather than their clients. She contended that this interpretation aligns with Congress's intent when passing EAJA and is consistent with how fee-shifting statutes are typically interpreted. Additionally, she pointed out practical implications of majority’s decision: it could discourage lawyers from representing Social Security claimants because they might not receive their fees if a client has outstanding debt to the government; it also places an undue burden on claimants who may have difficulty understanding complex federal offset laws or lack resources to challenge offsets applied against them. In her view, awarding fees directly to attorneys would ensure they get paid for their work and encourage representation of individuals seeking benefits under social security law.