Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-334_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

to understand the court of appeals’ authority to “order oth-
erwise” to include the authority to make a different alloca-
tion. 

Subdivision (e), which concerns appellate costs that are 
taxed in the district court, points in the same direction.  It 
refers to “the party entitled to costs under this rule.”  Rule 
39(e) (emphasis added).  Thus, if a party is awarded costs
under subdivision (a), it is “entitled” to those costs—i.e., has 
a right to obtain them and not merely to seek them—when 
a  proper  application  is  made  in  the  district  court.  See 
Black’s Law Dictionary 626 (rev. 4th ed. 1968) (“In its usual
sense, to entitle is to give a right or title”); see also Estate of 
Cowart  v.  Nicklos  Drilling  Co.,  505  U. S.  469,  477  (1992) 
(“Both in legal and general usage, the normal meaning of
entitlement includes a right or benefit for which a person
qualifies”).

Read properly, then, Rule 39 gives discretion over the al-
location  of  appellate  costs  to  the  courts  of  appeals.    With 
that settled, it is easy to see why district courts cannot ex-
ercise a second layer of discretion.  Suppose that a court of
appeals, in a case in which the district court’s judgment is 
affirmed, awards the prevailing appellee 70% of its costs.  If 
the district court, in an exercise of its own discretion, later 
reduced those costs by half, the appellee would receive only 
35% of its costs—in direct violation of the court of appeals’ 
directions.  Or suppose that the court of appeals, believing
that the decision below was plainly wrong, awards the pre-
vailing appellant 100% of its costs.  It would subvert that 
allocation if the district court declined to tax costs or sub-
stantially reduced them because it thought that there was 
at least a very strong argument in favor of the decision that
the  court  of  appeals  had  reversed—which,  of  course,  was 
the district court’s own decision.  In short, the court of ap-
peals’ determination that a party is “entitled” to costs would 
mean  little  if,  as  San  Antonio  believes,  the  district  court 
could take a second look at the equities.