Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-334_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 13

10 

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

Opinion of the Court 

district courts should have the discretion to alter the allo-
cation of appellate costs, but each of these arguments falls 
away upon inspection. 

First,  San  Antonio  argues  that  any  limits  on  a  district 
court’s discretion are incompatible with the equitable dis-
cretion district courts exercise with respect to certain costs 
incurred in the district court.  Those costs are customarily 
taxed  under  Federal  Rule  of  Civil  Procedure  54(d),  which 
“gives courts the discretion to award costs to prevailing par-
ties.”  Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., 566 U. S. 560, 
565 (2012); see also 28 U. S. C. §1920 (“A judge or clerk of 
any court of the United States may tax as costs the follow-
ing . . . ” (emphasis added)).4  In San Antonio’s view, it will 
create  confusion  if  a  district  court  acting  under  Appellate 
Rule 39(e) lacks the discretion it exercises under Civil Pro-
cedure Rule 54(d).

We do not see why our interpretation will lead to confu-
sion.  District courts have discretion in awarding costs in-
curred prior to appeal, but when they tax appellate costs, 
they perform a different function.  This interpretation quite
sensibly gives federal courts at each level primary discre-
tion over costs relating to their own proceedings.  See this 
Court’s  Rule 43;  Fed.  Rule  App.  Proc. 39;  Fed.  Rule  Civ.
Proc. 54. 

Second, San Antonio contends that appellate courts are
not  well-positioned  to  make  cost  allocations  under  Rule 
39(a).  In  its  view,  decisions  about  appellate  costs  might 
turn on factual disputes that district courts are better able 

—————— 

4 As the United States points out, see Brief for United States as Amicus 
Curiae 19, n. 4, we have interpreted Rule 54(d) to provide for taxing only 
the  costs  already  made  taxable  by  statute,  namely,  28  U. S. C.  §1920. 
See Crawford Fitting Co. v. J. T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U. S. 437, 441–442 
(1987).  Supersedeas bond premiums, despite being referenced in Appel-
late Rule 39(e)(3), are not listed as taxable costs in §1920.  San Antonio 
has not raised any argument that Rule 39 is inconsistent with §1920 in
this respect.  We accordingly do not consider this issue.