No. 23-621October Term 2024Decided Feb 25, 2025
Gerald F. Lackey, in His Official Capacity as the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, Petitioner v. Damian Stinnie, et al.
The Supreme Court considered whether plaintiffs who obtain a preliminary injunction but whose case becomes moot before a final judgment are eligible for attorney's fees as "prevailing parties" under federal civil rights law.
Case status
- Current stage
- Decided
- Latest event
- Decision released Feb 25, 2025
- What it's about
The Supreme Court considered whether plaintiffs who obtain a preliminary injunction but whose case becomes moot before a final judgment are eligible for attorney's fees as "prevailing parties" under federal civil rights law. The Court ruled that a preliminary injunction alone does not confer prevailing party status because it is a temporary measure rather than a conclusive resolution of the claims on the merits.
Question presented
Is a party who obtains a preliminary injunction a “prevailing party” for purposes of being entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C § 1988?
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit / Decision released Feb 25, 2025
- Area
Civil Rights
Documents
Related cases




Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary-source trail available.
- Note
- Plain-English explainer. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Mar 30, 2026
- Method
- Methodology
Primary materials9
Supreme Court docket 23-621
docket | Mar 30, 2026
Primary case document
Supreme Court document | Mar 30, 2026
CourtListener docket record
docket | Mar 30, 2026
Questions Presented
brief | Mar 8, 2026
opinion
opinion | Feb 25, 2025
Lackey
opinion | Feb 25, 2025
Oral Arguments - Lackey
audio | Oct 8, 2024
Petition
brief | Nov 20, 2023
Lower Court Orders/Opinions
order | Oct 27, 2023