Lackey v. Stinnie

civil rights litigationattorney's feesaccess to courtspoverty and finesdriver's license suspensionsLandmark

Summary

Plaintiffs challenging Virginia's driver's-license suspension system won a preliminary injunction, but the legislature later changed the law and the case became moot. The Supreme Court held that the preliminary injunction did not make the plaintiffs prevailing parties for attorney's-fee purposes under § 1988 because they did not obtain final relief that permanently changed the legal relationship of the parties.

Background & Context

Virginia used to suspend driver's licenses when people failed to pay court debt. Civil-rights plaintiffs challenged the system and won preliminary relief. After the state legislature changed the law, the plaintiffs sought fees for the work that produced temporary relief and helped change the legal landscape.

The Question Before the Court

Does a plaintiff who wins a preliminary injunction but receives no final merits judgment qualify as a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988?

Petitioner

John Lackey, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, et al.

Party asking the Court to review or reverse

Argued

Preliminary relief is not enough.

Respondent

Damian Stinnie, et al.

Party defending the judgment below

Argued

The injunction changed the legal relationship while it was in force.
Fee denial discourages civil-rights enforcement.

The Holding

A plaintiff who obtains only a preliminary injunction is not a prevailing party eligible for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 when the case becomes moot before final merits relief.

The Court

How the justices lined up in this decision.

7-2

Vote

Joined decision

7 justices

Amy Barrett

Majority

Brett Kavanaugh

Majority

Clarence Thomas

Majority

Elena Kagan

Majority

John Roberts

Majority

Neil Gorsuch

Majority

Samuel Alito

Majority

Dissented

2 justices

Ketanji Jackson

Dissent

Sonia Sotomayor

Dissent

What this means for you

The ruling makes civil-rights litigation riskier for people with limited resources. Plaintiffs may stop unconstitutional or unlawful practices temporarily but still be unable to recover attorney's fees if the government changes course before final judgment. That can reduce incentives for lawyers to bring cases for low-income people, even when the lawsuit helped force a policy change.

Key Takeaways

A preliminary injunction alone usually does not create prevailing-party status.
The case became moot after Virginia changed the challenged law.
The ruling affects civil-rights plaintiffs who win temporary relief but not final merits judgments.
The dissent warned that governments can avoid fee liability by changing policy after plaintiffs win preliminary relief.
The practical impact may reduce incentives to bring resource-intensive civil-rights cases for low-income clients.