Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-334_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2020 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF 
AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED TEXAS 
MUNICIPALITIES v. HOTELS.COM, L. P., ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 20–334.  Argued April 21, 2021—Decided May 27, 2021 

The City of San Antonio—acting on behalf of a class of 173 Texas munic-
ipalities—was  awarded  a  multi-million  dollar  judgment  in  Federal 
District  Court  against  a  number  of  popular  online  travel  companies 
(OTCs) over the calculation of hotel occupancy taxes.  To prevent exe-
cution  on  that  judgment  pending  appeal,  the  OTCs  obtained  super-
sedeas bonds securing the judgment.  See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 62.  On 
appeal, the Court of Appeals determined that the OTCs had not un-
derpaid on their taxes.  In accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure  39(d),  the  OTCs  filed  with  the  circuit  clerk  a  bill  of  costs 
seeking appellate docketing fees and printing costs, which were taxed 
without objection.  The OTCs then filed a bill of costs in the District 
Court  seeking  more  than  $2.3  million  in  costs—primarily  for  premi-
ums  paid  on  the  supersedeas  bonds  that  are  listed  in  Rule  39(e)  as 
“taxable  in  the  district  court  for  the  benefit  of  the  party  entitled  to 
costs.”  San Antonio objected and urged the District Court to exercise
its discretion to decline to tax all or most of those costs.  The District 
Court held that it had no discretion to deny or reduce those costs under 
Circuit precedent.  The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the 
District  Court  lacked  discretion  to  deny  or  reduce  appellate  cost 
awards. 

Held: Rule 39 does not permit a district court to alter a court of appeals’
allocation of the costs listed in subdivision (e) of that Rule.  Pp. 5–14.
(a)  Rule 39 creates a cohesive scheme for taxing appellate costs that
gives discretion over the allocation of appellate costs to the courts of 
appeals.  Rule 39(a) sets out default rules for cost allocation based on