Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-334_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

12 

SAN ANTONIO v. HOTELS.COM, L. P. 

Opinion of the Court 

In all events, if a court of appeals thinks that a district 
court is better suited to allocate the appellate costs listed in
Rule 39(e), the court of appeals may delegate that responsi-
bility to the district court, as several Courts of Appeals have 
done in the past.  See, e.g., Emmenegger v. Bull Moose Tube 
Co., 324 F. 3d 616, 626 (CA8 2003); Guse v. J. C. Penney Co., 
570 F. 2d 679, 681–682 (CA7 1978).  The parties agree that 
this pragmatic approach is permitted.  See Tr. of Oral Arg.
15,  44.  And  nothing  we  say  here  should  be  read  to  cast 
doubt on it.  See Rule 39(a) (imposing no direct limitations
on the court’s ability to “orde[r] otherwise”); Rule 41(a) (the
mandate includes “any direction about costs”).

Third, San Antonio contends that there would be no rea-
son for Rule 39(e) costs to be taxed in the district court, as 
opposed  to  the  court  of  appeals,  if  the  district  court  was 
simply required to enter “a ministerial order.”  Brief for Pe-
titioner 17.  But it makes sense for these costs to be taxed 
in  the  district  court  because  they  relate  to  events  in  that
court, and the district court’s responsibility is not ministe-
rial.  The  district  court  will  ensure  that  the  amount  re-
quested for the appellate costs in question is “correct.”  28 
U. S. C. §1924.  In addition, the district court will consider 
whether the costs were “necessarily” incurred, §1924, to the 
extent  that  the  costs  in  question  are  taxable  only  if  they
were  needed  for  the  appeal  or  to  stay  the  district  court’s 
judgment  pending  appeal.  See  Rule  39(e)(2)  (cost  of  re-
porter’s transcript taxable only “if needed to determine the
appeal”).  Other  costs  taxable  in  the  district  court  under 
Rule 39(e) are either fixed (subdivision (e)(4): the fee for fil-
ing  the  notice  of  appeal);  calculated  by  the  district  court
clerk  (subdivision  (e)(1):  preparation  and  transmission  of 
the  record);  or  concern  a  matter  already  approved  by  the 
district  court  (subdivision  (e)(3):  supersedeas  bond  premi-
ums; see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 62(b)).

San  Antonio,  however,  asked  the  District  Court  to  do 
much more.  It implored the court to exercise a free-ranging