The U.S. Supreme Court declared on Tuesday that individuals who secure early victories in civil rights litigation may not always be entitled to recover their legal fees. This decision has been met with concern from both conservative and liberal factions, as it might deter efforts in legal battles advocating for civil rights.
The ruling was made with a 7-2 majority against a group of Virginia drivers who had challenged the suspension of their licenses under a statute they deemed unconstitutional. The initial success came when the drivers secured a preliminary injunction, halting the law’s enforcement. However, before a final judicial decision was reached, Virginia repealed the law, effectively ending the litigation.
Traditionally in legal proceedings, each party covers its own expenses. An exception is present in civil rights cases, where the prevailing party can have the losing side pay for legal fees, designed to incentivize individuals to bring such claims forward. In this instance, after an appeals court decided that Virginia was liable for the drivers’ legal expenses, the state contended that since only a preliminary injunction was achieved, not a conclusive legal decision, public funds should not cover these costs.
Various advocacy organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Firearms Policy Coalition, supported the motorists. They emphasized that many cases are decided at the stage of a preliminary injunction, and the fear of incurring significant legal costs could discourage citizens from challenging governmental actions in courts, even if their rationale is substantiated.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court concluded that mere preliminary victories are insufficient since trial outcomes can vary. Therefore, plaintiffs need to succeed on the overall merits of the case to claim legal fees. Chief Justice John Roberts remarked, “A plaintiff who secures a preliminary injunction has achieved only temporary success at an intermediary ‘stage of the suit.”
The Court’s majority deemed concerns that governments might amend laws to circumvent court cases as speculative and applicable to a minimal number of situations. Roberts’ opinion was endorsed by five conservative justices, along with liberal justice Elena Kagan. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson stood in dissent.
Angela Ciolfi, executive director of the Legal Aid Justice Center—the organization that initiated the case—declared the court’s decision a “devastating blow to civil rights enforcement,” and warned it could result in “more civil rights violations and fewer remedies.”
