Supreme Court Decides Lackey v. Stinnie

On February 25, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lackey v. Stinnie, holding that obtaining a preliminary injunction does not bestow a litigant with the status of “prevailing party,” as required for an award of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), because a preliminary injunction does not provide an enduring judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties.

Plaintiffs-respondents were Virginia drivers whose licenses were suspended for failing to pay court fines or costs. They sued the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, arguing that the Virginia statute requiring suspension of their licenses was unconstitutional. The district court preliminarily enjoined the Commissioner from enforcing the statute, finding that the drivers had made “a clear showing that [they were] likely to succeed” on their procedural due process claim, though it noted that they need not “establish a certainty of success.” The district court also determined that the remaining preliminary injunction factors — the risk of irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest — weighed in the drivers’ favor. The Commissioner did not appeal the grant of the preliminary injunction. But, before the case reached final judgment, the Virginia General Assembly repealed the challenged law, rendering the action moot. The district court declined to award fees under § 1988(b), which allows an award of attorney’s fees to “prevailing parties” under § 1983. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals initially affirmed but then reversed en banc — reasoning that some preliminary injunctions can provide lasting, merits-based relief and qualify plaintiffs as prevailing parties, even if the case becomes moot before final judgment.

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that obtaining a preliminary injunction was not enough for “prevailing party” status under § 1988(b). The Supreme Court explained that preliminary injunctions do not make a party “prevailing” because they do not conclusively decide the case on the merits. Such injunctions only determine if a plaintiff is likely to succeed, along with factors such as irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until a trial can occur, and external events that render a dispute moot do not convert that temporary order into a conclusive adjudication.

The Supreme Court noted that its holding serves the interests of judicial economy, for reasons including that it provides a straightforward, bright-line rule that is easy to administer, reducing the risk of significant litigation over attorney’s fees. The Court further noted that concerns about government defendants strategically mooting litigation simply because they have lost at the preliminary injunction stage are speculative, and that, in any event, such a risk could arise in only a small number of contexts. Finally, the Court noted that Congress may amend the statutory language to empower courts to award attorney’s fees to plaintiffs who have enjoyed some success but have not prevailed in a judgment on the merits.

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.