Court Opinion

ID: 9569037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:10:00.440548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:20:39.351968
License: Public Domain

CARNES, Circuit Judge,
dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, in which TJOFLAT and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, join:
Although I have been on the short end of en banc votes before, this is the first time in sixteen years on the bench that I have written, or even joined, a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc. I take this unusual step to explain why I believe that in this case “a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by [the Supreme] Court.” Sup.Ct. R. 10(c).
The important, unresolved question this case presents is one that affects the proper application of at least one hundred federal fee-shifting statutes that allow the prevailing party to recover a reasonable attorney’s fee from the losing party. In arriving at an attorney’s fee award, a district court calculates a lodestar amount by multiplying the reasonable number of hours worked, which reflects the difficulty of the case, by an hourly rate that fully reflects the attorney’s skill and experience. See Penn. v. Del. Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 563, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 3097, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 *1332S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). The question is whether a district court can then increase the award beyond that reasonable amount based on its finding that the attorney’s performance was of superior quality and the results achieved were exceptional.
My court of appeals has answered that question “yes” in this case by affirming the district court’s judgment, which included a $4.5 million enhancement based on a number of factors, the most important of which were what the district court found to be superior performance and exceptional results. Kenny A. ex rel Winn v. Perdue, 532 F.3d 1209, 1218 (11th Cir.2008) (majority opinion);1 id. at 1225, 1242 (Carnes, J., concurring); id. at 1247, 1249 (Wilson, J., concurring); id. at 1251 (Hill, J., concurring); see also Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 454 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1288-90 (N.D.Ga.2006). The performance and results component was so important to the district court’s enhancement decision that we declined to vacate and remand the enhancement on other grounds, concluding that it would be futile to do so given the primacy of that component. Id. at 1242 (Carnes, J., concurring) (recognizing that the district court improperly took contingency and other factors into account but explaining that it would be futile to remand on those grounds because “[t]he district court was so obviously enamored with the performance of plaintiffs’ counsel and with the result that they achieved, and so determined to reward them for it, that we have no doubt the court would simply reinstate the enhancement”); see also id. at 1242, 1248 (Wilson, J., concurring) (agreeing that the district court should not have considered the contingency factor in making its enhancement decision but voting to affirm the full amount of the enhancement anyway).
Two of the three judges on the panel voted to affirm the multi-million dollar enhancement part of the fee award in this case because they were bound to follow established circuit law that a district court may take a reasonable attorney’s fee award and enhance it for what the court views as extraordinary performance and results. Id. at 1236-38 (Carnes, J., concurring); id. at 1251 (Hill, J., concurring); see generally Norman v. Hous. Auth. of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1302 (11th Cir.1988); NAACP v. City of Evergreen, 812 F.2d 1332, 1336-37 (11th Cir.1987). The third judge on the panel voted to affirm the enhancement both because binding circuit law permits it and because he reads Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984), as “establish[ing] that enhancements for quality of representation and exceptional results, while not warranted in most cases, are permissible where supported by specific evidence.” Kenny A., 532 F.3d at 1243, 1246 (Wilson, J., concurring).
The Supreme Court speculated on this issue in the Blum case, but the facts did not present it. There was no specific evidence in that case to support the district court’s conclusory findings that, among other things, the quality of legal services was superior to what one should reasonably expect and that the results obtained were exceptional. Blum, 465 U.S. at 898-99, 104 S.Ct. at 1548-49.
The Court reversed the enhancement in the Blum case. Id. at 902, 104 S.Ct. at 1550. Therefore, what the Blum decision *1333establishes, and all that it establishes, is that absent specific evidence and findings an enhancement for the quality of representation or results obtained is not permitted. See id. at 901-02, 104 S.Ct. at 1550; see also Kenny A, 532 F.3d at 1221-22 (Carnes, J., concurring).
The Blum case does not establish as law the proposition that with specific evidence and findings an enhancement for superior representation and exceptional results is permissible. It could not. A decision in a case where particular facts are not present cannot establish the law governing cases where those facts are present. Any statements, and certainly any implications from statements, in the Blum opinion about what might have been the result if the facts had been different are nothing more than dicta. See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 399-00, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821) (“It is a maxim not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision.”) (Marshall, C.J.); United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2031, 170 L.Ed.2d 912 (2008) (plurality opinion) (speculations that address a case not before the Court “are the purest of dicta”); Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2738, 2762, 168 L.Ed.2d 508 (2007) (plurality opinion); Cent. Va. Cmty. Coll. v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356, 363, 126 S.Ct. 990, 996, 163 L.Ed.2d 945 (2006).2
The Supreme Court had another go at the issue two years later in the Delaware Valley case. The court of appeals had affirmed an enhancement based in part on *1334the superior quality of the representation and the exceptional nature of the success achieved. Delaware Valley, 478 U.S. at 554-56, 106 S.Ct. at 3093-94. The Supreme Court held that the enhancement was improper. Id. at 567-68, 106 S.Ct. at 3099-3100. In explaining why, the Court made statements indicating that it was categorically ruling out enhancements for superior performance and by extension superior results. See id. at 564-66, 106 S.Ct. at 3098-3100. For example, the Court stated that the special skill and experience of counsel, the quality of representation, and the results obtained “are presumably fully reflected in the lodestar amount, and thus cannot serve as independent bases for increasing the basic fee award.” Id. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098. And the Court said this about superior performance enhancements: “In short, the lodestar figure includes most, if not all, of the relevant factors constituting a ‘reasonable’ attorney’s fee, and it is unnecessary to enhance the fee for superior performance in order to serve the statutory purpose of enabling plaintiffs to secure legal assistance.” Id. at 566, 106 S.Ct. at 3098; see also id., 106 S.Ct. at 3099 (“[T]he overall quality of performance ordinarily should not be used to adjust the lodestar, thus removing any danger of ‘double counting.’ ”).
Those categorical statements are clear, and if the Delaware Valley Court’s discussion had ended there everyone would agree that this type of enhancement had been categorically ruled out. The problem is that the discussion did not end with those statements. Instead, there was a “furthermore.” After explaining why the quality of the performance or the results obtained cannot serve as bases for enhancing the fee award, the Court stated that “[f]urthermore” there was neither specific evidence nor specific findings in that case about why the results were so outstanding or why the quality of representation was not fully reflected in the lodestar. Id. at 567-68, 106 S.Ct. at 3099. And “[i]n the absence of such evidence and such findings,” the Court could “find no reason to increase the fee award” based on the quality of representation. Id. at 568, 106 S.Ct. at 3099-3100.
There are two ways to interpret the Delaware Valley decision and its “furthermore” discussion. One way is to read the decision as containing two alternative holdings: an enhancement for superior representation and exceptional results is never permitted; and, even if it were, there was insufficient evidence or findings of anything special in that case. See Kenny A., 532 F.3d at 1239-41 (Carnes, J., concurring). The other way is to read Delaware Valley as containing not two alternative holdings but only one, which is that such enhancements are not allowed absent specific evidence and findings to support the conclusion that the quality of representation and results obtained were truly special. See Kenny A, 532 F.3d at 1243-45 (Wilson, J., concurring); Geier v. Sundquist, 372 F.3d 784, 794-95 (6th Cir.2004). Under that view, everything before the “furthermore” in the Delaware Valley opinion is not an alternative holding but only dicta.
If my alternative holdings interpretation of Delaware Valley is correct, then the law of this circuit and of the Sixth Circuit is flatly contrary to Supreme Court precedent, which needs to be clarified so that it will no longer be misinterpreted as holding exactly the opposite of what it does. If, instead, the narrow interpretation of the Delaware Valley decision is correct, then the Supreme Court has yet to hold — not imply, intimate, or suggest in dicta but actually hold — whether the federal fee-shifting statutes allow an enhancement when there is specific evidence and findings of superior performance and unexpected results.
*1335The issue is clearly and squarely presented in this case. Two of the panel members in this case sharply disagreed and wrote about the meaning and effect of the Blum and Delaware Valley decisions, both of which reversed instead of affirmed enhancements for superior performance and results. Those two panel members also disagreed about the effect on this issue of the reasoning in City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992), which is the Court’s last decision on the subject of lodestar enhancements. Compare Kenny A, 532 F.3d at 1221-33, 1239-41 (Carnes, J., concurring) with id. at 1242-49 (Wilson, J., concurring). The third panel member kept his views about that matter to himself. See id. at 1251 (Hill, J., concurring). The bottom line for certiorari review purposes, however, is that the law of the Eleventh Circuit permits this kind of enhancement, and that law was applied to permit a $4.5 million enhancement of the lodestar amount in this case. See id. at 1236-39, 1242 (Carnes, J., concurring); id. at 1242, 1251 (Wilson, J., concurring); id. at 1251 (Hill, J., concurring).
The decision whether to affirm or vacate the $4.5 million enhancement part of the attorney’s fee award turns on whether an enhancement for superior performance and exceptional results is permissible. If boosting the fee award on that basis is not proper, the judgment of the district court will have to be vacated and the case remanded. On remand the enhancement will have to be set aside entirely or at least substantially reduced because without that basis the $4.5 million increase above the lodestar amount of reasonable fees cannot stand.
This case presents the superior performance and exceptional results enhancement issue as well as any ever will because the evidence and findings in this case are as specific as any are likely to be. It is true that the evidence that the attorneys put into the record in this case was in the form of affidavits from friendly lawyers with a vested interest in boosting the award, and for that and other reasons I did not find it particularly convincing. See id. at 1231-33 (Carnes, J., concurring). But the district court and at least one panel member did. See id. at 1247-49 (Wilson, J., concurring); Kenny A, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1290. More importantly for present purposes, the evidence in this case goes beyond that in the Blum and Delaware Valley cases, and given the nature of the question it is hard to imagine any more specific supporting evidence than is in the record here.
And the supporting findings by the district court were probably as specific as any could be, to say nothing of the enthusiasm with which they were uttered. See Kenny A, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1288-90. The district court unequivocally proclaimed that the attorneys being awarded fees “brought a higher degree of skill, commitment, dedication, and professionalism to this litigation than the Court has seen displayed by the attorneys in any other case during its 27 years on the bench.” Id. at 1289. To convey its feelings about the result obtained, the court reached back beyond its 27 years on the bench, stating that “[ajfter 58 years as a practicing attorney and federal judge, the Court is unaware of any other case in which a plaintiff class has achieved such a favorable result on such a comprehensive scale.” Id. at 1290.
In fact, the district court speculated, the results the attorneys were able to achieve through settlement probably exceeded what their clients were entitled to receive under the law. Id. at 1289-90 (“[E]ven if plaintiffs had prevailed in a trial of this case, it is doubtful that they would have obtained relief as ‘intricately detailed and comprehensive’ as that contained in the Consent Decree.”); see also Kenny A, 532 *1336F.3d at 1229-30 (Carnes, J., concurring) (explaining that “[t]o the extent that the district court rewarded plaintiffs’ counsel with an enhancement for obtaining better results than the class would have received had the case been resolved on the merits, that is plainly wrong,” because “the fee-shifting statutes are not designed to provide representation that will win plaintiffs more than a correct application of substantive and remedial law entitles them to receive”). The district court’s statement highlights the exceptional results issue.3
It may be that the evidence and findings in this case are insufficient to support a superior performance and exceptional results enhancement. If so, it likely will be because no evidence or findings can ever justify an enhancement on performance and results grounds because the lodestar already takes into account all of the factors that go into how well an attorney performs and the result obtained. The decisions in Dague and Delaware Valley imply as much. See Dague, 505 U.S. at 562-63, 112 S.Ct. at 2641-42; Delaware Valley, 478 U.S. at 565-66, 106 S.Ct. at 3098-99. If that is the law, the Supreme Court needs to tell those of us on the lower courts because that point has not gotten across. See, e.g., Kenny A., 532 F.3d at 1243-45 (Wilson, J., concurring); Geier, 372 F.3d at 794-95; see also Norman, 836 F.2d at 1302; NAACP, 812 F.2d at 1336-37. See generally Kenny A., 532 F.3d at 1239 n. 29 (Carnes, J., concurring).
The importance of the lodestar question presented by this case extends beyond the particular statute involved in this case. It arises not only under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as significant as that statute is, but also under every other federal fee-shifting statute that allows the prevailing party to recover a reasonable attorney’s fee. While these statutes “cover a wide variety of contexts and causes of action, the benchmark for the awards under nearly all of these statutes is that the attorney’s fee must be ‘reasonable.’ ” Delaware Valley, 478 U.S. at 562, 106 S.Ct. at 3096-97. And “case law construing what is a ‘reasonable’ fee applies uniformly to all of [the federal fee-shifting statutes].” Dague, 505 U.S. at 562, 112 S.Ct. at 2641; see also Indep. Fed’n of Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U.S. 754, 758 n. 2, 109 S.Ct. 2732, 2735 n. 2, 105 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989) (“[F]ee-shifting statutes’ similar language is ‘a strong indication’ that they are to be interpreted alike,” (citation omitted)); Blum, 465 U.S. at 893, 104 S.Ct. at 1546 (noting that “Con*1337gress directed that attorney’s fees [under § 1988] be calculated according to standards currently in use under other fee-shifting statutes”); Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680, 691, 103 S.Ct. 3274, 3281, 77 L.Ed.2d 938 (1983) (explaining “that similar attorney’s fee provisions should be interpreted pari passu”); Northcross v. Bd. of Educ. of Memphis City Schs., 412 U.S. 427, 428, 93 S.Ct. 2201, 2202, 37 L.Ed.2d 48 (1973) (noting that “[t]he similarity of language” in two fee-shifting statutes “is, of course, a strong indication that the two statutes should be interpreted pari passu”).
At a minimum, there are “over 100 separate [federal] statutes providing for the award of attorney’s fees.” Delaware Valley, 478 U.S. at 562, 106 S.Ct. at 3096. The actual number may be higher. See Marjorie A. Silver, Evening the Odds: The Case for Attorneys’ Fee Awards for Administrative Resolution of Title VI and Title VII Disputes, 67 N.C. L.Rev. 379, 386 n.47 (1989) (estimating that “Congress has enacted anywhere from 100 to 200 fee-shifting statutes” (citations omitted)); John F. Yargo, The American Rule on Attorney Fee Allocation: The Injured Person’s Access to Justice, 42 Am. U.L.Rev. 1567, 1588 (1993) (noting that “[t]here áre over 200 federal statutes ... that provide for shifting of attorney’s fees”). A partial list of federal fee-shifting statutes is attached as an appendix to this opinion. The precise number of federal “reasonable attorney’s fee” statutes is not the point. The point is that this issue arises under not just one federal statute but under at least a hundred of them.
An unresolved issue affecting so many federal statutes is important. The record in this case and the facts and findings drawn from it present this important, unresolved issue as well as any case will and better than almost any other case can. It presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to reach the issue it could not reach in Blum and Delaware Valley: Under the federal fee-shifting statutes can a reasonable attorney’s fee be enhanced based on extraordinary effort or results where some evidence and findings support the enhancement, or are all of the factors that lead to the quality of the performance and the results obtained already covered in the lodestar calculation, as the opinions in Delaware Valley and Dague imply?
APPENDIX
Partial List of Federal Statutes Providing for the Prevailing Party To Recover a Reasonable Attorney’s Fee
Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E);
Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(2)(B) & (g)(4)(B);
Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552b(i);
Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 18(d)(1) & (e);
Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. § 210(f);
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act 1930, 7 U.S.C. § 499g(b); Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967, 7 U.S.C. § 2305(a) & (c);
Plant Variety Protection Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2565;
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, 11 U.S.C. §§ 303(i)(l)(B) & 523(d);
Home Owners’ Loan Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1464(q)(3);
Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1786(p);
Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1818(n);
Bank Holding Company Act Amendments of 1970,12 U.S.C. § 1975;
*1338Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974,12 U.S.C. § 2607(d)(5);
Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, 12 U.S.C. §§ 3417(a)(4) & 3418;
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a) & (b)(1);
Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15c(a)(2) & 26;
Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77k(e);
Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77ooo(e) & 77www(a);
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78i(e), 78r(a), 78u(h)(8);
Jewelers’ Liability Act, 15 U.S.C. § 298(b)-(d);
Consumer Leasing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1667b(a);
Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691e(d) & 1692k(a)(3);
Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1709(c);
Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2060(c), 2072(a), 2073(a);
Hobby Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2102;
Magnuson-Moss Warranty — Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(2);
Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2618(d) & 2619(c)(2);
Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2805(d)(1)(c) & (3);
Condominium and Cooperative Abuse Relief Act of 1980, 15 U.S.C. §§ 3608(d) & 3611(d);
Export Trading Company Act of 1982, 15 U.S.C. § 4016(b)(1) & (4);
National Cooperative Research Act of 1984,15U.S.C. § 4304(a)(1) & (b);
National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980, 16 U.S.C. § 470w-4;
Endangered Species Act of 1973,16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(4);
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.16 U.S.C. § 2632(a)(1);
Copyright Act of 1976,17 U.S.C. § 505;
Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984.17 U.S.C. § 911(f);
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c);
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,18 U.S.C. § 2520(b)(3);
Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Amendments Act of 1980, 25 U.S.C. § 640d27(b);
Tax Reform Act of 1976, 26 U.S.C. § 6110(j)(2)(B);
Jury System Improvement Act of 1978, 28 U.S.C. § 1875(d)(2);
Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 1927; 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b);
Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504(a)-(b);
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. § 431(c);
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b);
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b);
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g);
Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, 29 U.S.C. § 1451(e);
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. §§ 815(c)(3) & 938(c);
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. §§ 1275(e) & 1293(c);
Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, 30 U.S.C. § 1427(c);
Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982, 30 U.S.C. § 1734(a)(4);
*1339Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 928(a);
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d);
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 1415(g)(4);
Deepwater Ports Act of 1974, 33 U.S.C. § 1515(d);
Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 U.S.C. § 1910(d);
Patent Infringement Act, 35 U.S.C. § 285; Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300j-8(d);
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b);
Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b);
Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 19731(e);
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997a(b) & 1997c(d);
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(b);
Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000b — 1;
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k);
Privacy Protection Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa-6(f);
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. § 2184;
Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3612(p);
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4654(a) & (c);
Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 4911(d);
National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. § 5412(b);
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. § 5851(e)(2);
Comprehensive Older Americans Act Amendments of 1978, 42 U.S.C. § 6104(e)(1);
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6305(d);
Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(e);
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7604(d), 7607(f);
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, 42 •U.S.C. § 7622(e)(2);
Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. § 8435(d);
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 9124(d);
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978, 43 U.S.C. § 1349(a)(5) & (b)(2);
Railway Labor Act of 1926, 45 U.S.C. § 153(p); Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 206 & 407;
Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(2)(C);
Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 11704(d)(3), 11707(b);
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 U.S.C. § 1810(c).

. Judge Hill joined Parts I-V and VII of the lead opinion, which I authored, making those parts a majority opinion. See id. at 1220 n. 3. Neither he nor Judge Wilson joined Part VI of the lead opinion, and for that reason I refer to it as a concurring opinion by me. Although Part VI of the lead opinion is not part of the majority opinion, the pronoun "we” was used throughout it for continuity purposes.

. There is this passage in the Blum opinion:
[W]e reiterate what was said in Hensley: “where a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee. Normally this will encompass all hours reasonably expended on the litigation, and indeed in some cases of exceptional success an enhancement award may be justified.” Hensley, 461 U.S., at [435], 103 S.Ct., at 1940. We therefore reject petitioner’s argument that an upward adjustment to an attorney's fee is never appropriate under § 1988.
Blum, 465 U.S. at 901, 104 S.Ct. at 1550 (footnote omitted). The speculative "may be” language is "the purest of dicta,” Santos, 128 S.Ct. at 2031 (plurality opinion), because the enhancement in Blum was reversed instead of affirmed. The quotation from Hensley is itself the purest of dicta because that case involved the reduction of an attorney’s fee award for partial success, not the enhancement of one for more success than was expected. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 426, 103 S.Ct. at 1935-36. For what it is worth, I agree with the literal statement in the dicta of the last sentence of the quotation from Blum, which rejects the argument that an upward adjustment of a fee award is never appropriate. While I believe that enhancements are never appropriate for superior performance and exceptional results, see Kenny A., 532 F.3d at 1220-42 (Carnes, J., concurring), they may well be appropriate in other situations, especially those involving unpopular clients or causes where the attorney suffers from the representation in ways not compensated by the lodestar. Id. at 1233-34 (giving three examples); see also Guam Soc'y of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Ada, 100 F.3d 691, 698-99 (9th Cir.1996) (concluding that enhancement was appropriate where case was extremely controversial and attorney received death threats during the course of the litigation). No one contends that this is a case where the clients were detested, the litigation was unpopular, or the attorneys’ standing in their profession or community suffered in the least. In fact, just the opposite is true. Kenny A., 532 F.3d at 1234-35 (Carnes, J., concurring); cf. Applegate v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 751, 773 (Fed.Cl.2002) (reversing judgment awarding enhancement where "the facts here demonstrate that [plaintiffs’ counsel] was not prosecuting an unattractive case, but rather pursuing a cause celeb — the type of case that a firm with local roots likely would embrace and seek to publicize to its clients and prospective clients as an indication of its community involvement”).