Boston Firefighters Union, Local 718 v. Boston Chapter, Naacp

1983-09-01

Headline: Court denies request to retax costs, leaving Boston firefighters, police, and civil‑rights groups responsible for litigation costs after the city’s law restored laid-off officers and firefighters.

Holding: The Court denied the request to retax costs, so the groups defending the lower-court relief must pay the litigation costs assessed against them.

Real World Impact:

Firefighters, police, and civil‑rights groups remain responsible for assessed court costs.
The order is procedural and not a final merits decision on affirmative action.
State law reinstated laid‑off employees and altered the case’s course.

Topics: public sector layoffs, affirmative action, court costs, race and hiring

Summary

Background

In 1981 the city of Boston planned large layoffs of firefighters and police officers during a fiscal crisis. Massachusetts law required last‑hired, first‑fired layoffs. Many minority officers had been hired recently under consent agreements to correct past discrimination. A federal court barred layoffs that would lower minority representation below pre‑layoff levels, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Massachusetts then passed a law restoring those employees and protecting them against future fiscal layoffs. The Supreme Court later vacated and sent the case back to consider whether the new law made the dispute moot. Costs were taxed against the groups defending the lower-court relief, and those groups asked the Court to retax (cancel or reduce) those costs.

Reasoning

The immediate question before the Court was whether to allow the groups to avoid or reduce the costs that had been assessed against them. The Court denied the motion to retax costs and left the assessed costs in place. The opinion notes that the Court had vacated the earlier judgment and remanded for mootness review because of the new state law. A dissenting Justice argued that the Court’s action gave petitioners no of the relief they sought and therefore it was wrong to force the groups to pay the other side’s costs.

Real world impact

As a direct result, the firefighters, police officers, and civil‑rights organizations that defended the prior rulings remain responsible for the court costs assessed against them. The order is procedural and does not resolve the underlying affirmative‑action questions on the merits. Because the case was vacated and remanded for mootness, the substantive legal fight could still proceed or change in lower courts.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun dissented from the denial of the motion to retax costs. He would have granted the motion and allowed no costs to either party, saying it was unfair to make the groups pay when the Court’s disposition gave petitioners none of the relief they sought.