Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-334_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 7

4 

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

Opinion of the Court 

held that the OTCs had not underpaid the hotel occupancy 
taxes.  Its mandate stated: “[T]he judgment of the District 
Court is vacated and rendered for OTCs.”  App. 100.  In ac-
cordance  with  Federal  Rule  of  Appellate  Procedure  39(d),
the OTCs filed a bill of costs with the Circuit Clerk and re-
quested $905.60 to cover the appellate docket fee and the 
cost of printing their briefs and appendix.  App. to Pet. for
Cert. 28a–30a.  These items were taxed without objection. 
See Rule 39(d)(2).1 

Back in the District Court, the OTCs filed a bill of costs 
for more than $2.3 million.  The lion’s share of these costs 
were  supersedeas  bond  premiums.    San  Antonio  objected, 
urging the District Court to exercise its discretion and de-
cline  to  tax  all  or  most  of  those  costs.  The  city  argued,
among other things, that the OTCs should have pursued al-
ternatives to a supersedeas bond and that it was unfair for 
San  Antonio  to  bear  the  costs  for  the  entire  class  rather 
than just its proportional share of the judgment.  The Dis-
trict Court  thought San Antonio had made “some persua-
sive arguments.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. 16a.  But based on 
Circuit  precedent,  the  court  held  that  it  lacked  discretion
“regarding whether, when, to what extent, or to which party
to award costs of the appeal” and that “its sole responsibil-
ity [was] to ensure that only proper costs are awarded.”  Id., 
at 17a (internal quotation marks omitted).  The court ulti-
mately taxed costs of just over $2.2 million.

San Antonio appealed, and this time the Court of Appeals
affirmed.  959 F. 3d 159 (CA5 2020).  It reasoned that its 
earlier  decision  had  “reversed”  the  District  Court’s  judg-
ment within the meaning of Rule 39(a)(3) and that it had 
not  departed  from  the  default  allocation  under  that  Rule. 

—————— 

1 Rule 39 has been amended since the Court of Appeals issued its first 
decision in this case.  The changes are not material for our purposes here, 
so for simplicity we cite the current version of the Federal Rules of Ap-
pellate Procedure unless otherwise noted.