Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-334_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

form of equitable discretion that would directly conflict with
the equitable discretion of the Court of Appeals.  See Brief 
for Petitioner 20, n. 5 (outlining a wide range of equitable 
considerations).  And it invited the District Court to deny
or reduce for equitable reasons the bona fide costs that the 
OTCs  had  paid  as  premiums  for  supersedeas  bonds  that 
were known and negotiated by San Antonio and were ap-
proved by the District Court without objection under Rule 
62.  The lower courts were correct to hold that the District 
Court  lacked  the  authority  to  entertain  San  Antonio’s 
broad, equitable arguments.

Finally, San Antonio worries that parties will be unable 
to obtain review of their objections to Rule 39(e) costs if the
district court cannot provide relief after the matter returns 
to that court.  We agree that the current Rules and the rel-
evant statutes could specify more clearly the procedure that 
such a party should follow to bring their arguments to the 
court  of  appeals,  but  this  does  not  lead  to  the  conclusion
that a district court can reallocate those costs. 

Rule  27  sets  forth  a  generally  applicable  procedure  for 
seeking relief in a court of appeals, and a simple motion “for
an order” under Rule 27 should suffice to seek an order un-
der Rule 39(a).  Compare Fed. Rule App. Proc. 39(a) (“The 
following rules apply unless . . . the court orders otherwise”)
with Rule 27(a) (“An application for an order . . . is made by
motion  unless  these  rules  prescribe  another  form”).    The 
OTCs  also  identify  instances  where  parties  have  raised 
their arguments through other procedural vehicles, includ-
ing merits briefing, see Rule 28, objections to a bill of costs,
see Rule 39(d)(2), and petitions for rehearing, see Rule 40.
Brief for Respondents 42, nn. 9–11.  We do not foreclose lit-
igants  from  raising  their  arguments  in  any  manner  con-
sistent with the relevant federal and local Rules. 

In  short,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  applying  the  plain 
text of Rule 39 will create the practical problems that San
Antonio envisions.