Legal Document

127 S. Ct. 2188 (2007) Michael W. SOLE, Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, et al., Petitioners, v. T.A. WYNER al. No. 06-531. Supreme Court United States. Argued April 17, 2007. Decided June 4, *2191 Virginia A. Seitz, Washington, DC, for Petitioners. Patricia Millet, States as amicus curiae, by special leave the Court, supporting Seth M. Galanter, Respondents. Carri Leininger, James O. Williams, Jr., Leininger & Crosby, West Palm Beach, FL, David Petron, Pankaj Venugopal, Robert Parker, D.C., Randall C. Marshall, Miami, K. Green, PA., Steven R. Shapiro, New York, NY, Beth Brinkmann, Brian Matsui, Morrison Foerster LLP, Justice GINSBURG delivered opinion Court. For private actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other specified measures designed to secure civil rights, Congress established an exception "American Rule" that "the prevailing litigant is ordinarily not entitled collect [counsel fees] from loser." Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 247, 95 1612, 44 L. Ed. 2d 141 (1975). That exception, codified in 1988(b), authorizes federal district courts, their discretion, "allow party . a reasonable attorney's fee part costs." This case presents sole question: Does plaintiff who gains preliminary injunction after abbreviated hearing, but denied permanent dispositive adjudication on merits, qualify "prevailing party" within compass 1988(b)? Viewing two stages litigation discrete episodes, plaintiffs below, respondents here, maintain they prevailed at stage, *2192 therefore award counsels' efforts obtain interim relief. Defendants petitioners regard unit; urge holds no sway once fuller consideration yields rejection provisional order's legal or factual underpinnings. We agree with latter position hold final decision merits denying injunctive relief determines prevails action purposes 1988(b). A achieves transient victory threshold can gain fee-shifting provision if, end litigation, her initial success undone she leaves courthouse emptyhanded. I In mid-January 2003, plaintiff-respondent Wyner notified Protection (DEP) intention create Valentine's Day, February 14, John D. MacArthur Beach State Park, antiwar artwork. The work would consist nude individuals assembled into peace sign. By letter dated 6, DEP informed sign display be lawful only if participants complied "Bathing Suit set out Administrative Code 62D-2.014(7)(b) (2005). rule required patrons, all areas Florida's state parks, wear, minimum, thong and, female, bikini top.[1] To safeguard Day display, future expressive activities same order, against police interference, filed suit District Southern 12, 2003. She invoked First Amendment's protection conduct, named defendants Secretary Manager Park.[2] Her complaint requested immediate interference App. 18, "future may include non-erotic displays human bodies," id., 19. An exhibit attached May 1995 Stipulation Settlement DEP. Id., 22-23. settlement had facilitated 19, 1996 play coordinated production involving performers. term provided "arrange placement bolt cloth semi-circle around area where [would] performed," 23, so beachgoers did wish see shielded day was filed, 13, heard Wyner's emergency motion injunction. Although disconcerted hurried character proceeding, 37, 93, 95, court granted "The choice," explained, "need either/or." Struhs, 254 F. Supp. 1297, 1303 (S.D.Fla.2003). Pointing laying "agreed-upon manner restrictions," *2193 determined "[p]laintiff['s] desired expression interests both satisfied simultaneously." Ibid. this regard, inquired DEP's counsel hearing: "Why wouldn't curtain screen solve problem somebody [who] doesn't want nudity? Seems like [the] problem, it?" 86. Counsel responded: "That's option. don't think necessarily [defendants] opposed ." Ibid.; 74 (testimony Chief Operations Park hearing Service's counsel, prior occasions, advised: "[I]f go behind liv[e] up agreement then it's okay. If live okay."). symbol took place next day. put up, apparently State, anticipated. See 108. also 94 (District Judge's statement conclusion "I make it clear [preliminary] preclude department, chooses, using some sort barrier.. ."). But outside barrier, participants, disassembled formation, went water nude. 108; Deposition Civ. Action 03-80103 (SD Fla., Nov. 2003), pp. 99-100. Thereafter, pursued demand represented 2004, intended another again nudity. 107. After discovery, sides moved summary judgment. At motions, held January 21, asked about preceding year's display. acknowledged ignored barrier front screen. week later, having unsuccessfully urged parties resolve "[they] before [the 1995] settlement," 143, plaintiff's judgment defendants' deliberate failure coparticipants remain 2003 concluded, demonstrated Bathing Rule's prohibition nudity "no greater than essential protect experiences visiting public." Case 03-80103-CIV Jan. 28, 2004) (Summary Judgment Order), Pet. Cert. 42a. While ultimately failed prevail added, prohibiting temporary art installation, 45a, qualified extent, Aug. 16, (Omnibus Brief Opposition 5a-13a. could revisited second stage noted, "expired its own terms." 4a. So reasoning, awarded fees covering first phase litigation. officials appealed, challenging order granting fees. Wyner, however, appeal Appeals *2194 Eleventh Circuit challenges were moot because addressed "a finite event occurred ended specific, past date." 179 Fed.Appx. 566, 567, n. 1 (2006) (per curiam). affirmed award, reasoning gained through primary [she] sought," i.e., allowed present unimpeded adverse action. 569. have fees, recognized, rested mistake law. 568, 569-570. "new developments," said, 569, any error, accounted "to achieve actual stage," 7. Plaintiff others participating admitted, stay 569; further, fair reading record show[ed] [p]laintif[f] remaining [barrier] during works," ibid. likelihood shown 7, been overtaken subsequent "demonstrat[ion] less restrictive alternative," "was sufficient government's interest," demonstration, bar facts" emerged stage. certiorari, Struhs 549 ___, 1055, 166 797 (2007), now reverse. II touchstone inquiry," has stated, material alteration relationship which sought promote statute." Texas Teachers Assn. Garland Independent School Dist., 489 782, 792-793, 109 1486, 103 866 (1989). Hewitt Helms, 482 755, 760, 107 2672, 96 654 (1987) (plaintiff must "receive least his claim he said prevail"); Maher Gagne, 448 122, 129, 100 2570, 65 653 (1980) (upholding settled obtained consent decree); cf. Buckhannon Board Care Home, Inc. Dept. Health Human Resources, 532 598, 605, 121 1835, 149 855 (2001) (precedent "counsel[s] holding `prevailing party' without corresponding parties").[3]*2195 petitioning here does satisfy standard for, consequence judgment, "[t]he law whose constitutionality [Wyner] attacked [i.e., Rule,] remains valid enforceable today." Petitioners 3. left doubt score, emphasize; ordering defendants, expressed, bottom line opinion, "hope" continue use park, "albeit nude." Summary Order, 46a. hand, urges despite denial injunction, got precisely what wanted when commenced litigation: permission interference. fleeting success, establish gravamen plea relief, charge right engage constitutionally protected activities." 18. Prevailing status, we hold, attend achievement reversed, dissolved, otherwise case.[4] called upon assess probability ultimate merits. See, e.g., Ashcroft American Civil Liberties Union, 542 656, 666, 124 2783, 159 690 (2004); Doran Salem Inn, Inc., 422 922, 931, 2561, 45 648 foundation assessment will more depending thoroughness exploration undertaken court. cases, proceedings grant are searching; others, little time resources spent contest. case, hasty abbreviated. Held one event, timing afforded officer opportunity oppose motion. appeared telephone. 36. proceeding nor adequate review documents preparation presentation witnesses. 38-39. immediately expired appellate gained, court's ruling preclusive effect continuing Both considered issue, fit reexamination review, place. 34a; Omnibus 3a-4a; Fed. Appx., 1; Lewis Continental Bank Corp., 494 472, 477-479, 110 1249, 108 400 (1990). short, terminated parties' opening engagement. Its tentative character, view continuation definitively controversy, made request premature. Of controlling importance our decision, eventual adjudication, superseded *2196 ruling. premise rejected. understanding adequately serve interest shielding public recreational beach users see. supra, 2192-2193; F.Supp.2d, (noting previously agreed number restrictions far total ban nudity"). benefit record, recognized incorrect. Participants fact unwilling separated them park visitors. (acknowledgment protest "in effec[t] screen"). light inadequacy contain enforcement Rule necessary "preserv[e] aesthetics" "protect 41a, contends undermined "as applied" developing argument, asserts engaged impermissible content-based administration Rule. assumed, "for [its initial] order," content neutrality officials' conduct. 1302. 4 (reiterating that, sake "assumed neutrality"). specification controlling. Proc. 65(d) (requiring every "set forth reasons issuance" "be specific terms"). Schmidt Lessard, 414 473, 476, 713, 38 661 (1974) curiam) (Rule prevent uncertainty confusion those faced orders."). rejected advanced motion: banning parks unconstitutional applied expressive, nonerotic fray, remained intact, enduring "chang[e][in] relationship" between herself sued. Assn., U.S., 792, 1486. III party, conclude, ephemeral. "secur[es] loses plays entered [her]," "[won] battle los[t] war." Watson County Riverside, 300 F.3d 1092, 1096 (C.A.9 2002). presented with, decide, broader issue case. express whether, absence gaining sometimes warrant decide 1988(b) decided her. *2197 * remanded consistent opinion. It ordered. NOTES [1] reads: "In including bathing individual shall expose human, male female genitals, pubic area, entire buttocks breast below top nipple, fully opaque covering." Fla. Admin. Ann. [2] joined coplaintiff George Simon, served videographer organized Beach. 13. convenience, refer coplaintiffs collectively plaintiff. [3] 600, (2001), provisions Fair Housing Amendments Act 1988 Americans Disabilities 1990 "includ[e] court-ordered decree, nonetheless achieved result lawsuit voluntary change defendant's conduct." dissent deemed such "prevailing," (in pending litigation), caused amend laws, terminating controversy parties, permanently giving real-world outcome sought. 622, 624-625, 1835 (opinion GINSBURG, J.). Our today views majority dissenters Buckhannon. [4] resolving dimensions art-works involve

Classification Label: 5