Lackey v. Stinnie
| Lackey v. Stinnie | |
|---|---|
| Argued October 8, 2024 Decided February 25, 2025 | |
| Full case name | Gerald Lackey, Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles v. Damian Stinnie et al. |
| Docket no. | 23-621 |
| Citations | 604 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Decision | Opinion |
| Holding | |
| Parties that secure a preliminary injunction have not "prevailed" for the purposes of recovering attorneys' fees, even if their case was mooted by the challenged law's repeal. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett |
| Dissent | Jackson, joined by Sotomayor |
| Laws applied | |
| Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976 | |
Lackey v. Stinnie, 604 U.S. ___ (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that a preliminary injunction under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976 does not qualify the litigants as the "prevailing party" for the purposes of recouping attorney's fees, even if case was ended due to mootness of the challenged law being repealed before further judicial proceedings. This case reinforced the "American rule" that each side pays its legal costs unless a statute expressly authorizes otherwise.