Lackey v. Stinnie

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that a party who wins a preliminary injunction (a temporary court order) is not a 'prevailing party' entitled to attorney's fees if the case ends before a final judgment. The Court explained that these temporary wins do not conclusively resolve the legal claims on their merits. Because the case became moot (no longer a live legal issue) before a final decision, the plaintiffs did not meet the high bar for winning.

This decision makes it harder for civil rights plaintiffs to recover legal costs when the government changes its behavior mid-lawsuit. For example, if a person sues over an unfair law and the state repeals it after a temporary court order, the person may still have to pay their own expensive legal bills. This could discourage lawyers from taking on important civil rights cases for people who cannot afford to pay.

Under the 'American Rule,' each side usually pays its own legal fees regardless of who wins. Congress created an exception for civil rights cases to encourage people to fight for their constitutional rights. This case clarifies that only a permanent, judicial victory counts as 'prevailing' under that federal law.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion for a 7-2 Court, joined by the other conservative justices and Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“The term 'prevailing party' refers to a party who obtains enduring judicial relief that conclusively resolves their claim on the merits.”

A temporary court victory is not enough to force the losing side to pay the winner's attorney's fees if the case ends early.

The case will return to the lower courts to be formally closed following the Supreme Court's instructions. Civil rights groups will likely look for new ways to ensure their legal costs are covered when the government settles or changes laws during a dispute.

The case focused on whether Virginia drivers could collect attorney's fees after a court temporarily blocked a law that suspended licenses for unpaid court debts.

People suing the government may now face large legal bills even if they win a temporary victory that forces the government to change its ways.

The Court held that 'prevailing party' status requires a permanent change in the legal relationship between parties that is caused by a final judicial order.

The case is reversed and remanded (sent back) to the lower court to apply the Supreme Court's new ruling to the final fee request.

This ruling reinforces a strict reading of fee-shifting statutes, making it more difficult for litigants to bypass the standard rule that everyone pays for themselves.