Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources

Background

Buckhannon, a nonprofit that runs assisted-living homes, sued West Virginia after inspectors ordered closures because some residents could not self-evacuate. The homes sued under the Fair Housing Amendments Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act to stop enforcement. While the suit proceeded, the West Virginia Legislature repealed the “self-preservation” rule, the state moved to dismiss as moot, and the homes asked for attorney’s fees, saying their lawsuit had prompted the change.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether a plaintiff who achieves relief only because the defendant voluntarily changed behavior — without a court judgment or court-ordered consent decree — is a “prevailing party” eligible for statutory fees. The majority held that the term requires a judicially enforceable change in the parties’ legal relationship, such as a judgment or consent decree. Citing the traditional rule that parties bear their own fees absent clear statutory authority, the Court rejected the “catalyst theory,” found the cited legislative history ambiguous, and affirmed the Fourth Circuit.

Real world impact

After this decision, plaintiffs who obtain change only through a defendant’s voluntary action cannot recover statutory attorney’s fees unless a court issues a judgment or a consent decree enforcing the change. Governments and companies may prefer voluntary fixes or negotiated settlements to avoid fee exposure. Plaintiffs with meritorious but expensive claims risk paying their own fees unless they secure enforceable court relief.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia concurred, stressing the historical, judgment-centered meaning of "prevailing party." Justice Ginsburg dissented, arguing the catalyst rule was widely used by appeals courts and better promotes private enforcement of civil-rights laws.