Northcross v. Memphis Board of Education

1973-06-04
Share:

Headline: Desegregation plaintiffs who won in Memphis get a new chance at attorneys’ fees as the Court orders reconsideration under the civil‑rights fee standard, potentially allowing fee awards on remand.

Holding: The Court vacated the appeals court’s denial of attorneys’ fees and remanded for reconsideration under the civil‑rights rule that successful plaintiffs ordinarily recover fees unless special circumstances make an award unjust.

Real World Impact:
  • Requires lower courts to re-evaluate denied attorneys’ fees using the civil‑rights fee standard.
  • Could allow successful desegregation plaintiffs to recover reasonable attorney fees.
  • Fees incurred before July 1, 1972, and fees in Section 1983 suits remain undecided.
Topics: school desegregation, attorneys' fees, civil rights enforcement, federal appeals

Summary

Background

The dispute involves successful plaintiffs who sued to desegregate the public schools of Memphis, Tennessee and later sought attorneys’ fees. The relevant law, Section 718 of the Emergency School Aid Act (effective July 1, 1972), says that when a federal court enters a final order against a local education agency in a discrimination case, the court may in its discretion allow the prevailing party a reasonable attorney’s fee if the proceedings were necessary to secure compliance. The Sixth Circuit denied the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees but did not give reasons for that denial.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the appeals court’s unexplained denial of fees was proper under Section 718. The opinion notes that Section 718 tracks the language of an earlier civil‑rights fee statute and relies on Newman v. Piggie Park, which said that a plaintiff who wins an injunction should ordinarily recover attorney’s fees unless special circumstances make an award unjust. Because the Court cannot tell from the record whether the Sixth Circuit applied that standard, it concluded the appeals court must reconsider. The Court therefore granted review, vacated the part of the judgment denying fees, and sent the case back to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Real world impact

On remand, the appeals court must re-evaluate the fee request under the civil‑rights fee standard, which increases the chance that successful desegregation plaintiffs could recover reasonable attorneys’ fees. The Court did not decide whether fees incurred before July 1, 1972, are recoverable or how fees in suits brought under Section 1983 should be treated; those questions remain open.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases