Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-334_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

§3946.1  (5th  ed.  Supp.  2021)  (1998  restyling  was  “not  in-
tended to make substantive changes”). 

The real work done by the phrase “taxable in the district
court” is the specification of the court in which these costs 
are to be taxed—that is, in the district court.  Assigning this 
work to the district court makes  good sense.  Under Rule 
39, costs incurred in the court of appeals, such as the fee for
docketing the case in that court and the cost of printing the
party’s briefs and appendices, are taxed in the court of ap-
peals.  See Rule 39(d).  And the costs incurred in the district 
court—that is, the costs listed in subdivision (e)—are taxed 
in the district court.  These are the costs attributable to “the 
preparation and transmission of the record,” “the reporter’s
transcript, if needed to determine the appeal,” “premiums
paid for a bond or other security to preserve rights pending
appeal,” and “the fee for filing the notice of appeal.”

The nature of these costs makes it fitting for them to be
taxed in the district court.  The first enumerated cost—the 
cost of “the preparation and transmission of the record”—
relates to the district court clerk, who has the responsibility 
of  performing  those  tasks.    See  Fed.  Rule  App.  Proc.
11(b)(2).  The  second  category,  the  cost  of  “the  reporter’s
transcript,” concerns work done in the district court.  See 
Rule 10(b).  The third category, “premiums paid for a bond
or other security to preserve rights pending appeal,” relates
to a matter previously approved by the district court.  See 
Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 62(b).  And the last category, “the fee 
for filing the notice of appeal,” is an amount that was paid
to the district court clerk.  See 28 U. S. C. §1917.

For the reasons set out above, we hold that courts of ap-
peals have the discretion to apportion all the appellate costs
covered by Rule 39 and that district courts cannot alter that 
allocation. 

San Antonio offers a variety of practical arguments why 

B