Blum v. Stenson
Headline: Medicaid class attorneys from a nonprofit cannot be paid based on service cost; Court upholds market-rate fee calculation and rejects an unsupported 50% bonus, narrowing when fee enhancements are allowed.
Holding: The Court held that fees under the federal civil-rights fee law (Section 1988) should use prevailing market rates for nonprofit legal aid and that the District Court’s unsupported 50% fee increase was unjustified.
- Nonprofit civil-rights fees calculated by prevailing market rates.
- Courts must require evidence before granting fee enhancements.
- This case reduced the award by $39,656 to $79,312.
Summary
Background
A statewide class of New York Medicaid recipients sued after their benefits were automatically ended when they lost Supplemental Security Income (SSI) eligibility. The Legal Aid Society, a private nonprofit law office, represented the class. The District Court granted class status, enjoined the automatic terminations, and ordered procedural protections. After prevailing, the nonprofit lawyers requested fees for about 809.75 hours at $95–$105 per hour and asked for a 50% additional increase, which the District Court awarded.
Reasoning
The Court addressed two questions: whether nonprofit legal services must be paid based on their cost or on prevailing market rates, and whether a court can raise a fee above the basic hours-times-rate calculation. Relying on the statute’s text and legislative history, the Court held that a reasonable fee under the federal civil-rights fee law should be calculated using prevailing market rates, regardless of nonprofit status. The usual starting point is hours reasonably worked multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. An upward adjustment can be allowed in rare cases, but the fee applicant must prove why enhancement is needed. Here the Legal Aid Society offered no specific evidence to justify a bonus.
Real world impact
The Court reduced the award to the amount shown by the hours-times-rate calculation ($79,312) and reversed the $39,656 portion of the award based on the unsupported 50% increase. Going forward, fee applicants bear the burden of proving enhancements, and courts should reflect quality, novelty, or risk in rates or with documented justification.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan (joined by Justice Marshall) concurred, stressing that risk of nonpayment can justify an upward adjustment and that Congress’s history supports such contingency considerations.
Opinions in this case:
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?