← All Cases

Lackey v. Stinnie

No. 23-621 SCOTUS · Decided Decided SCOTUS
Cert Granted: Apr 22, 2024 Argued: Oct 8, 2024 Decided: Feb 25, 2025
📄 Read the Opinion

Case Overview

Lackey v. Stinnie held that plaintiffs who obtained a preliminary injunction but whose case was mooted before a final judgment on the merits do not qualify as 'prevailing parties' entitled to attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988. The Court distinguished between the temporary, interlocutory nature of a preliminary injunction and the durable, merits-based judicial relief that courts have recognized as conferring prevailing party status. The ruling limits fee recovery for plaintiffs whose victories are cut short by legislative changes.


The Facts

Virginia suspended the driver's licenses of motorists who owed court fines or fees under a statute later challenged as unconstitutional. Plaintiffs Stinnie and others obtained a preliminary injunction restoring their licenses pending litigation. Before a final decision on the merits, Virginia repealed the challenged statute, mooting the case. Plaintiffs then sought attorney fees as prevailing parties.

The Application

History

Although plaintiffs obtained the practical relief they sought through the preliminary injunction—restoration of their driver's licenses—the court held that interlocutory relief does not confer prevailing party status under Section 1988. The critical distinction turned on durability: when Virginia repealed the statute before final judgment, the preliminary injunction became merely temporary relief unanchored to any lasting judicial resolution on the merits. Prevailing party status, the court reasoned, requires either a final judgment or consent decree that effects a durable change in the parties' legal relationship, which a preliminary injunction—by its nature temporary and subject to reversal—cannot provide.

The Conclusion

**The Court affirmed.** Chief Justice Roberts wrote for a 7-2 majority. Sotomayor and Gorsuch dissented, arguing that plaintiffs who secure the practical relief they sought through judicial action should qualify as prevailing parties regardless of whether the case reaches final judgment.

CourtSupreme Court of the United States
FiledApr 10, 2023
Judge
CL Statusactive
View on CourtListener →

No circuit court data for this case.

Cert GrantedApr 22, 2024
Statusactive
Filed (CL)Apr 10, 2023
View on CourtListener →

Outcome History (2)

  1. Aug 18, 2023 Circuit
    Dismissed Relief denied Final

    Case dismissed for failure to prosecute.

  2. Oct 23, 2023 Circuit
    Other Neutral

    Petition for review reinstated, temporary stay of removal restored.

SCOTUS TMR-2aee55af Jul 5, 2026
Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support