Document: Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES STEVEN LEFEMINE, DBA COLUMBIA CHRISTIANS FOR LIFE v. DAN WIDEMAN ET AL. ON PETITION WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12–168. Decided November 5, 2012 PER CURIAM. This case concerns the award of attorney’s fees in a suit alleging unconstitutional conduct by government officials. The United States Court Appeals for Fourth Circuit held that plaintiff who secured permanent injunction but no monetary damages was not “prevailing party” under 42 U.S. C. §1988, and so could receive fees. That error. Because ordered de- fendant officials to change their behavior way directly benefited plaintiff, we vacate Cir- cuit’s decision remand further proceedings. * Petitioner Steven Lefemine members Columbia Christians Life (CCL) engage demonstrations which they carry pictures aborted fetuses protest availability abortions. On 3, 2005, about 20 other CCL conducted such demonstration at busy intersection Greenwood Coun- ty, South Carolina. Citing complaints graphic signs, County police officer informed Lefem- ine if signs were discarded, he would be tick- eted breach peace. objected, asserting violating his First Amendment rights, threat eventually caused him disband pro- test. See Davis, 732 F. Supp. 2d 614, 617–619 (SC 2010). A year later, an attorney sent letter 2 LEFEMINE Dan Wideman, sheriff County, inform- ing group intended return same site with disputed signs. cautioned interference cause “ ‘to pursue all avail- able legal remedies.’ ” Id., 619. Chief Deputy Mike Frederick responded had previously violated Lefemine’s warned ‘should observe any protester or demonstrator committing act, will again ourselves exactly manner: order person(s) stop face criminal sanctions.’ Ibid. Out fear those sanctions, chose county next two years. ibid. October 31, 2008, filed complaint §1983 against several officers violations rights. sought nominal damages, declaratory judgment, injunction, 2d, 620. Ruling on parties’ dueling motions summary District deter- mined defendants infringed id., 620–625. court therefore perma- nently enjoined “from engaging content- based restrictions [Lefemine’s] display signs” similar circumstances. 627. court, however, refused request finding entitled qualified immunity because illegality clearly established time. as well denied stating “[u]nder totality facts this is warranted.” affirmed denial ground Court’s judgment did make §1988. 672 3 3d 292, 302–303 (2012).* reasoned relief awarded ‘alte[r] relative positions ”: prohibited only “unlawful, legitimate, defendant[s],” merely “ordered [d]efendants comply law safe- guard constitutional rights future. No awarded.” writ certiorari review Circuit’s determina- tion prevailing party Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act 1976, 90 Stat. 2641, allows “the certain civil actions, including suits brought §1983, recover “a reasonable fee.” “prevails,” have held, “when actual merits claim materially alters relation- ship between parties modifying defendant’s benefits plaintiff.” Farrar Hobby, 506 103, 111–112 (1992). And repeatedly like award, usually satisfy See, e.g., Rhodes Stewart, 488 1, 4 (1988) (per curiam). Under these standards, party. desired demonstra- tions defendant told carry. He part secure protect himself from defendants’ standing sanctions. succeeded removing threat. them —————— appeal took given violation occurred. 3d, 299, n. 5. Contrary view, ruling worked requisite material alteration relationship. Before ruling, protesting signs; after prevent demonstrating manner. So when law,” 303, given—as usual involving injunction—supported party,” “should ordinarily fee unless special circum- stances render unjust.” Hensley Eckerhart, 461 424, 429 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither courts below addressed whether circumstances exist case, do so; there may grounds contest liability question before us. Accordingly, petition granted, vacated, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. It ordered.

Category: 5