Lefemine v. Wideman
The Supreme Court ruled that a pro-life protester who won a permanent injunction against police, but no monetary damages, still counted as a "prevailing party" entitled to seek attorney's fees. The Court summarily reversed a Fourth Circuit ruling that had denied him fees solely because he received no damages award.
The decision reinforces that a court order forcing government officials to change their conduct is enough, on its own, to trigger the right to seek civil-rights attorney's fees -- regardless of whether the plaintiff also won money.
How it got here: A federal trial court found a First Amendment violation and issued a permanent injunction but denied fees; the Fourth Circuit affirmed the fee denial, and Lefemine sought Supreme Court review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Steven Lefemine and other members of an anti-abortion group displayed graphic signs of aborted fetuses while protesting in Greenwood County, South Carolina. A police officer threatened to ticket him unless he removed the signs, and a sheriff's deputy later warned that similar protests would face the same response. Fearing sanctions, the group stopped protesting there for two years before Lefemine sued.
The question before the Court
If a protester wins a permanent injunction against police but no money damages, has he still "won" enough to get his lawyer's fees paid?
Why it matters
Civil rights plaintiffs who win only injunctions -- not money -- often can't afford lawyers unless fee-shifting laws cover them. This ruling assures lawyers who take on government-misconduct cases for free or on contingency that winning an injunction alone can support a fee award, encouraging more suits challenging unconstitutional police and government conduct.
What changes now
The case returns to the lower courts, which must now decide whether any special circumstances exist that would make a fee award unjust, and address any other arguments the police officers may have against paying fees. This is not a final award of fees -- it only restores the protester's status as a prevailing party eligible to seek them.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether Lefemine will actually receive attorney's fees, how much, or whether special circumstances might make a fee award unjust. It also left open any other defenses the police officers might raise against paying fees.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court applied its settled test for who counts as a 'prevailing party' under civil-rights fee-shifting law: a plaintiff prevails when relief on the merits materially changes the legal relationship between the parties by forcing the defendant to change behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff.
- The Court noted it has repeatedly held that an injunction or declaratory judgment, just like a damages award, will usually satisfy this test on its own.
- Applying that standard here, the Court found that before the ruling, police intended to stop the protester from displaying his signs, and after the ruling, they could no longer do so -- a real change in the parties' legal relationship.
- The Court rejected the Fourth Circuit's reasoning that an injunction ordering officials merely to 'comply with the law' doesn't count, holding instead that this is exactly the kind of relief that ordinarily supports a fee award.
- Because the protester qualified as a prevailing party, the Court held he should ordinarily recover fees unless special circumstances make an award unjust -- a question neither lower court had actually examined.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Farrar v. Hobby (506 U. S. 103)
Reaffirms the test for when a plaintiff has 'prevailed' enough to recover attorney's fees.
Reaffirms Rhodes v. Stewart (488 U. S. 1)
Reaffirms that injunctions or declaratory judgments usually satisfy the prevailing-party test.
Reaffirms Hensley v. Eckerhart (461 U. S. 424)
Reaffirms that prevailing parties should ordinarily recover fees absent special circumstances.