WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Lackey v. Stinnie, a case in which the Court considered when a civil rights plaintiff is eligible for attorney’s fees as the “prevailing party” in a case, Constitutional Accountability Center Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod issued the following reaction:

The plain text of Section 1988 provides that courts can award attorney’s fees to plaintiffs if they are the “prevailing party” in certain categories of civil rights cases.

Today the Supreme Court said that Damian Stinnie and others who went to court to challenge Virginia’s suspension of their driver’s licenses were not the “prevailing party” even though the court ordered Virginia to undo those suspensions, and Stinnie and the other plaintiffs were free to drive again. According to the Court’s majority, that was not enough: a plaintiff who secures a preliminary injunction does not “prevail” under this statute.

This decision is at odds with the text and history of Section 1988. As Justice Jackson put it in her dissent, joined by Justice Sotomayor, the majority’s decision “lacks any basis in the text of §1988(b) and is plainly inconsistent with that statutory provision’s clear objective, which is to encourage attorneys to file civil rights actions on behalf of the most vulnerable people in our society.” As a result of the Court’s decision today, it will be more difficult for individuals whose rights are violated to get their day in court.

As Justice Jackson put it, “It is the role of Congress, not this Court, to weigh concerns about administrative ease against the benefits of guaranteeing individuals an opportunity to vindicate their civil rights.” It is profoundly disappointing that the Court today effectively decided to override Congress’s judgment about when plaintiffs should be eligible for attorney’s fees.