Noteworthy Supreme Court Decisions in Civil Cases Today

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued two decisions in civil cases that we have been following but not participating in. The decisions involve exhaustion of administrative remedies in civil rights suits and attorneys fees for a party who gets a preliminary injunction in a case that is subsequently rendered moot.

In some areas of law, a claimant must first exhaust administrative remedies before turning to the courts. The federal statute for civil rights suits against state and local officials, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, does not have an exhaustion requirement generally, although there is one for prisoner suits in the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Suits under this statute may generally be brought in state or federal court. In Williams v. Reed, the excessive delay in the administrative process for unemployment benefits was itself the ground of complaint. Thus, a state requirement to exhaust administrative remedies effectively precluded any judicial relief. The Supreme Court decided, 5-4, that in these circumstances the state exhaustion requirement is preempted.

In most lawsuits, both parties must pay their own attorney’s fees regardless of who wins the case. There are exceptions created by statute, one of which is 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for civil rights suits under § 1983. On its face, § 1988 provides neutrally for attorney’s fees for the prevailing party, although the Supreme Court has misconstrued it to tilt heavily in favor of prevailing plaintiffs and against prevailing defendants.

But what does it take to be a “prevailing party”? In Lackey v. Stinnie, the plaintiffs challenged a statute as unconstitutional and obtained a preliminary injunction against its enforcement pending trial. The Legislature then repealed the statute, rendering the case moot, and it was dismissed. Does that make the plaintiffs “prevailing parties”? No, said the Supreme Court, 7-2. The merits of the case were never decided, and thus there is no winner.