The U.S. Supreme Court case Richard Demarest v. James, Manspeaker et al., 1990 revolved around the issue of whether court clerks were authorized to award attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The petitioner, Richard Demarest, had initially won a Social Security disability benefits claim and sought reimbursement for his legal expenses under EAJA. However, his application was denied by a court clerk on grounds that only judges could make such awards. On appeal before the Supreme Court, it ruled in favor of Demarest stating that Congress intended for both judges and clerks to have this authority as per EAJA provisions which state "any adjudicative officer of an agency" can grant these fees - with 'adjudicative officer' referring not just to judges but also other officials who perform similar functions like court clerks.

In the dissenting opinion for Richard Demarest v. James, Manspeaker et al., Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's interpretation of 28 U.S.C. §2412(d)(1)(A) was too broad and not in line with Congress' intent when it enacted the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). He contended that EAJA was designed to reimburse fees for individuals who had been forced to litigate against unreasonable government action, not those who voluntarily chose litigation as a means of securing payment from the government. In this case, he believed Mr. Demarest could have pursued administrative remedies instead of immediately resorting to litigation; therefore, awarding him attorney’s fees under EAJA would be contrary to its purpose.