Oral Argument: Lackey v. Stinnie | Case No. 23-621 | Date Argued: 10/8/24

Case Info: Lackey v. Stinnie | Case No. 23-621 | Date Argued: 10/8/24 | Date Decided: 2/25/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Questions Presented:

1. Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
2. Whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties' legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Holding: The plaintiff drivers here—who gained only preliminary injunctive relief before this action became moot—do not qualify as “prevailing part[ies]” eligible for attorney’s fees under §1988(b) because no court conclusively resolved their claims by granting enduring judicial relief on the merits that materially altered the legal relationship between the parties.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined.  Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioner: Erika L. Maley, Solicitor General, Richmond, Va.; and Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
• For respondents: Brian D. Schmalzbach, Richmond, Va.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.