Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-334_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

ed. 2020).  To prevent complications arising from pre-appeal 
enforcement of judgments, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
62(b) provides that a party “may obtain a stay by providing 
a bond or other security.”  These bonds are often called su-
persedeas  bonds,  tracking  the  name  of  a  traditional  writ
that  was  used  to  stay  the  execution  of  a  legal  judgment. 
See,  e.g.,  Hardeman  v.  Anderson,  4  How.  640,  642  (1846) 
(issuing  a  “writ  of  supersedeas  to  stay  execution  on  the
judgment”).  “A supersedeas bond is a contract by which a
surety  obligates  itself  to  pay  a  final  judgment  rendered
against  its  principal  under  the  conditions  stated  in  the 
bond.”  13 A Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure §62.19 (3d ed.
Supp. 2021). 

B 
The cost dispute before us arises out of litigation between
the city of San Antonio—acting on behalf of a class of 173 
Texas  municipalities—and  a  number  of  popular  online
travel  companies  (OTCs).    In  2006,  San  Antonio  alleged 
that the OTCs had been systematically underpaying hotel 
occupancy  taxes  by  calculating  them  using  the  wholesale 
rate that the OTCs negotiated with hotels rather than the
retail rate that consumers paid for hotel rooms.  After a jury 
trial,  the  District  Court  entered  a  judgment  of  approxi-
mately $55 million in favor of the class. 

The OTCs quickly sought to secure supersedeas bonds to 
stay the judgment.  They negotiated with San Antonio over 
the terms of the bonds, and the city ultimately supported
the  OTCs’  efforts  to  stay  the  judgment  with  supersedeas 
bonds totaling almost $69 million, an amount that was cal-
culated  to  cover  the  judgment  plus  18  months  of  interest 
and further taxes.  The District Court approved the bonds, 
which were subsequently increased at San Antonio’s urging 
to  cover  what  grew  to  be  an  $84  million  judgment  after 
years of post-trial motions.

The OTCs eventually appealed, and the Court of Appeals