Lackey v. Stinnie
Issues
Must a party win a case to get attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, or is it enough to win a preliminary injunction that solves the underlying controversy of the case?
This case asks the Supreme Court if a party must win a case to get attorney’s fees or if it is enough to win a preliminary injunction that solves the underlying controversy of the case. Lackey argues that the Supreme Court should reject the Circuit consensus and decide that a preliminary injunction winner is not a “prevailing party” under 42 U.S. Code § 1988 to be consistent with the Supreme Court’s previous cases. Additionally, Lackey maintains that when the case has been resolved due to a voluntary change in the law rather than a judicial order, there is no “prevailing party” as defined by § 1988. Stinnie counters that the winner of a preliminary injunction does indeed “win” a case in the way Congress intended when it used the term “prevailing party.” Further, Stinnie contends that the voluntary change in the law was not necessary for them to achieve meaningful relief, so they have already “prevailed” over the other party. The Supreme Court’s decision, in this case, will impact federal, state, local, and municipal governments’ ability to protect the public interest, private attorneys’ ability to vindicate civil rights, and the workload facing lower courts.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
(1) Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (2) whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties’ legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under Section 1988.
Under the now-repealed Virginia law § 46.2-395, a Virginia resident faced automatic suspension of their driver’s license if they failed to pay specific court fines or fees. See Stinnie v. Holcomb at 3 (2018). In March of 2019, the Governor of Virginia proposed an amendment, suspending the enforcement of the law.
Additional Resources
- Jimmy Hoover, Justices to Examine Meaning of ‘Prevailing Party’ in Attorney Fees Disputes, Law.com (Apr. 22, 2024).
- Amy Howe, Court schedules first cases for 2024-25 term, SCOTUSblog.com (Jul. 26, 2024).
- Lisa Nagele-Piazza, 5 SCOTUS Cases for Employers to Track as 2024/2025 Term Begins, Fisher Phillips (Sept. 25, 2024).
- Lackey v. Stinnie, Ballotpedia.