Lackey v. Stinnie

 In this case, the court considered this issue: Is a party who obtains a preliminary injunction a “prevailing party” for purposes of being entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U-S-C § 1988?The case was decided on February 25, 2025.The Supreme Court held that a party that receives a preliminary injunction but does not obtain a final judgment on the merits before a case becomes moot is not a "prevailing party" eligible for attorney's fees under 42 U-S-C §1988(b). Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.The term “prevailing party” in §1988(b) refers to a party who obtains enduring judicial relief that conclusively resolves their claim on the merits. Preliminary injunctions do not qualify because they merely preserve the status quo temporarily while predicting likelihood of success—they do not conclusively determine rights. Importantly, a “prevailing party” traditionally means one who "successfully prosecutes the action" or "successfully maintains" their claim "at the end" of proceedings, not one who achieves temporary success at intermediate stages.External events that render a case moot do not transform a preliminary injunction into the kind of judicial success that warrants attorney's fees. For a party to “prevail” under §1988(b), both the change in legal relationship between parties and the permanence of that change must result from judicial order, not from outside circumstances.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.