San Antonio v. Hotels.com, L. P.

After online travel companies won an appeal in a tax fight with San Antonio and other Texas cities, they sought more than $2.3 million in appeal-related costs for supersedeas-bond premiums. The Supreme Court is being asked whether a district court can deny or reduce those costs under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(e), or must award them.

The case is pending, and oral argument has not been scheduled. The dispute is whether Rule 39(e) lets a district court use discretion over these costs or leaves no room to deny or reduce them.

The answer could affect how expensive it is to lose an appeal when a party had to post a large bond. For example, a city or business could face a multimillion-dollar cost request, and the trial judge may or may not have flexibility to trim it.

Watch for oral argument or another scheduling move from the Court. No decision window is available yet.

It wants clarity on who decides Rule 39(e) appellate costs in district court. The key issue is whether judges may deny or reduce them.

Large appellate cost requests can raise the price of losing an appeal for cities, companies, and other litigants. That can affect settlement pressure and budgeting.

The next sign of movement is oral argument being scheduled or another Court calendar update. The prompt gives no decision timeline yet.