WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Lackey v. Stinnie, a case in which the Supreme Court is considering when a civil rights plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees as the “prevailing party” in a case, Constitutional Accountability Center Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod issued the following reaction:

When Damian Stinnie and others went to court to challenge Virginia’s suspension of their driver’s licenses, the court ordered Virginia to undo those suspensions, and Stinnie and the other plaintiffs were free to drive again. As several Justices recognized at argument this morning, Stinnie and the other plaintiffs got what they wanted. In other words, they succeeded in their suit.

That is enough for them to be a “prevailing party” eligible for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Indeed, that is the only conclusion consistent with the ordinary meaning the words “prevailing party” had when Congress passed the law in 1976. It is also the only conclusion consistent with the history of the law, which Congress passed to enable and encourage plaintiffs injured by civil rights cases to seek judicial relief—something often not possible without an award of attorney’s fees.

As Justices pointed out at oral argument this morning, courts of appeals across the country have rejected the categorical rule that the Virginia DMV is saying should prevent an award of attorney’s fees in this case, and there’s a reason for that. It is at odds with both the text and history of Section 1988.

Sometimes even cases at the Supreme Court are simple, and this is one of them: the “prevailing party” is the party that succeeds, and Stinnie and the other plaintiffs in this case plainly succeeded.

##

Resources: Case page in Lackey v. Stinnie: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/lackey-v-stinnie/