Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-334_5h26.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–334 
_________________ 

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF 
AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED TEXAS 
MUNICIPALITIES, PETITIONER v. 
HOTELS.COM, L. P., ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[May 27, 2021] 

JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. 
Civil litigation in the federal courts is often an expensive 
affair, and each party, win or lose, generally bears many of
its  own  litigation  expenses,  including  attorney’s  fees  that
are subject to the so-called American Rule.  Baker Botts L. 
L. P. v. ASARCO LLC, 576 U. S. 121, 126 (2015).  But cer-
tain “costs” are treated differently.  Federal Rule of Appel-
late Procedure 39 governs the taxation of appellate “costs,”
and the question in this case is whether a district court has
the discretion to deny or reduce those costs.  We hold that 
it does not and therefore affirm the judgment below. 

I 
A 
There  is  a  longstanding  tradition  of  awarding  certain
costs other than attorney’s fees to prevailing parties in the
federal  courts.  Marx  v.  General  Revenue  Corp.,  568  U. S. 
371, 377, and n. 3 (2013); see, e.g., Winchester v. Jackson, 3 
Cranch 514 (1806).  Today, Federal Rule of Appellate Pro-
cedure 39 sets out the procedure for assessing and taxing