Sole v. Wyner
Headline: Artist’s temporary win to stage a nude peace-sign display is overturned; Court blocks attorney-fee award because the final ruling rejected her challenge, making preliminary victories inadequate for fee recovery.
Holding: The Court held that a person who wins a short-lived preliminary injunction but later loses the main lawsuit does not qualify to receive attorney’s fees under the federal law that allows courts to pay lawyers in civil-rights cases.
- Prevents fee awards for plaintiffs whose preliminary injunctions are later overturned on the merits.
- Protects state agencies from paying lawyer fees when final rulings favor the government.
- Leaves open whether fees can be awarded when no final merits decision is reached.
Summary
Background
An artist told Florida officials she planned a Valentine’s Day antiwar artwork made of nude people arranged in a peace sign at a state beach. The park told her the Bathing Suit Rule required at least a thong and, for women, a bikini top. The artist sued for immediate and permanent protection from interference, noting a 1995 settlement had allowed a screened nude play. A hurried one-day hearing produced a preliminary injunction allowing the display; the event proceeded the next day.
Reasoning
The central question was whether that short-lived victory made the artist a “prevailing party” entitled to attorney’s fees under the federal civil-rights fee law. The Court explained that preliminary injunctions are provisional, often decided on a rushed record without discovery, and do not by themselves change the parties’ legal relationship. Here, the later, fuller hearing showed participants had not stayed behind the screen, and the District Court ruled against the artist on the merits, leaving the Bathing Suit Rule intact. Because the final judgment superseded the temporary order, the artist’s initial success produced no lasting legal change and therefore did not justify a fee award under §1988(b).
Real world impact
The ruling reverses the appeals court’s fee award and sends the case back for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Practically, plaintiffs who win only fleeting injunctive relief but lose on the merits cannot claim fee awards; government agencies likewise face reduced risk of paying fees when final rulings favor them. The Court expressly left open whether fees might ever be appropriate when no final merits decision is reached.
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?