In Lackey v. Stinnie, the majority made it harder for people whose civil rights have been violated to afford to go to court to vindicate their rights. The Court did this by making it easier for civil rights violators to avoid having to pay their victims’ attorneys’ fees.
What was this case about?
In 1976, Congress passed a law stating that the “prevailing party” in certain civil rights actions can recover reasonable attorney’s fees from the other side. This is an essential part of protecting civil rights. Those who are most likely to suffer from civil rights violations are often those least able to afford a lawyer. The law gave lawyers an incentive to represent parties without a lot of money.
This case concerned the issue of who counts as a “prevailing party.” If the plaintiff successfully gets a preliminary injunction and the case never gets to trial, is that enough to be a “prevailing party?” Or does the case have to proceed all the way to a trial and a final ruling?
In this case, Virginia drivers were having their licenses automatically suspended if they didn’t pay certain court fines and fees. They sued and got a preliminary injunction from a judge who found that this likely violated their constitutional rights. But the case didn’t go to trial. Instead, the state reformed the law, and the case was dismissed as moot. Since the case never reached the final stage, Virginia claimed it did not have to pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees.
How did the Court majority rule?
In a 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the majority ruled against civil rights plaintiffs. He wrote that in order to be a “prevailing party,” your case has to be conclusively decided by a court. Getting a preliminary injunction isn’t enough, even if the case never proceeds any further than that.
How does this decision hurt people?
In her dissent, Justice Jackson (joined by Justice Sotomayor) explained that the majority’s decision was at odds with congressional intent. Congress wanted to encourage attorneys to file civil rights actions on behalf of the most vulnerable people in our society. But the majority’s decision makes private civil rights enforcement harder, not easier.
She also pointed out the majority makes it possible for defendants to game the system. If the case against them is so strong that a court issues a preliminary injunction, they can strategically moot the case and avoid paying the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. That leaves victims of civil rights violations “holding the bag for considerable litigation fees despite – and largely because of – their having succeeded in obtaining preliminary relief.”
Because of the majority’s ruling, it will now be harder for those who have had their civil rights violated to find lawyers willing to represent them even when their case is strong. This puts all of us at risk.