Question not identified.

Robert Holman obtained a preliminary injunction against a racially discriminatory debt -relief program of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). After the program was repealed, Holman entered into a stipulated agreement to dismiss his action , based on representations that he could seek attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). EAJA allows prevailing parties in actions against the federal government to recover attorney ’s fees, so long as the government’s position was “not substantially justified.” App. 98a. In determining the government’s justification, however, l ower courts are divided over how much weight to place on an agency’s unreasonable pre-litigation conduct (the policy being challenged in the case) . Some circuits place “substantial” or “dispositive” weight on such conduct . That was n ot so here. Below , the Sixth Circuit did not emphasize the USDA ’s discriminatory policies at all. Instead , the panel deemed the government ’s position substantially justified , relying primari ly on the government’s professionalism in court and its success dismissing two ancillary claims. The question s presented in this petition are : 1) May the federal government rely on its litigation conduct to establish that it s position is “substantially justified” under EAJA, when its pre -litigation conduct was objectively unreasonable? 2) Did the Sixth Circuit err i n holding that the government ’s position was substantially justified , given the strict scrutiny standard applicable to race discrimination ?