Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
High Court Hears Argument Over Whether Preliminary Injunctions Create 'Prevailing Party' for Fee Awards
Summary
At oral argument in Lackey v. Stinney (No. 23621), counsel and justices debated whether a preliminary injunction can confer "prevailing party" status under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, focusing on finality, material alteration of legal relationships, and doctrinal lines from Soule, Buchanan, and Munsingwear.
At oral argument in Lackey v. Stinney (No. 23621), lawyers and justices wrestled with whether a preliminary injunction can make a litigant a "prevailing party" entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Counsel for the petitioner urged the Court to adopt a bright-line rule that a preliminary injunction (PI) is temporary and does not create prevailing-party status; opposing counsel argued that an unreversed favorable judgment and tangible relief can produce that result.
Speaker 2, arguing counsel for one side, told the Court: "A preliminary injunction, therefore, does not make a plaintiff the prevailing party." That position rested on the point that a PI is "a threshold prediction of the likelihood of success based on a truncated…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat