Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society
421 U.S. 240 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the 'American Rule,' a prevailing litigant is not entitled to collect attorney's fees from the loser. Federal courts cannot judicially create a 'private attorney general' exception to this rule to award fees in public interest litigation; such fee-shifting is only permissible when explicitly authorized by Congress.
Facts:
- In 1968, a major oil field was discovered on the North Slope of Alaska.
- In June 1969, a consortium of oil companies, which would become Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., applied to the U.S. Department of the Interior for rights-of-way to construct a massive oil pipeline across federal lands in Alaska.
- The initial application was studied by a federal task force, and an amended application was submitted in December 1969.
- The amended application requested a 54-foot right-of-way, plus additional land through 'special land use permits,' which environmental groups believed exceeded the width limitations set by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920.
- Wilderness Society, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., and Friends of the Earth (respondents) contended that the Secretary of the Interior intended to issue these permits without complying with the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
Procedural Posture:
- In March 1970, Wilderness Society and other environmental groups sued the Secretary of the Interior in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The District Court granted a preliminary injunction, halting the issuance of the pipeline permits.
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. and the State of Alaska intervened as defendants.
- The District Court later dissolved the injunction and dismissed the complaint.
- The environmental groups, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed, holding that the proposed permits violated the width restrictions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. It did not decide the NEPA claims.
- Congress then passed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, which amended the Mineral Leasing Act to allow the permits and declared that no further NEPA action was necessary.
- With the merits now moot, the environmental groups filed a motion in the Court of Appeals for an award of attorneys' fees.
- The Court of Appeals awarded the groups one-half of their attorneys' fees against Alyeska, reasoning that they had acted as a 'private attorney general'.
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., as petitioner, was granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the award of attorneys' fees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court have the equitable power to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party on the theory that the party acted as a 'private attorney general' by vindicating important public rights, where such an award is not expressly authorized by statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. Federal courts do not have the equitable power to award attorneys' fees based on a 'private attorney general' theory without express statutory authorization, as this would be a major judicial departure from the long-standing American Rule. The general practice in the United States is that, absent a statute or enforceable contract, litigants must pay their own attorneys' fees. This rule is deeply rooted in federal law, originating from the Act of 1853 which specified the limited costs, including small docket fees for attorneys, that could be taxed against a losing party. While courts have carved out narrow equitable exceptions—for bad faith conduct, willful disobedience of a court order, or when a litigant preserves a 'common fund' for the benefit of others—the 'private attorney general' theory does not fit within these exceptions. Congress has demonstrated its authority over this policy area by selectively including fee-shifting provisions in numerous statutes, such as civil rights and antitrust laws. For courts to create a broad new exception would usurp Congress's legislative prerogative to decide which statutes are important enough to warrant encouraging private enforcement through fee awards.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes. Federal equity courts have the power to award attorneys’ fees on a private-attorney-general rationale. The respondents in this case acted as private attorneys general to ensure the proper functioning of government and to protect substantial public interests. Denying fees would deter such important litigation, and the Court of Appeals correctly exercised its power in awarding them.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. Federal courts possess inherent equitable power to award attorneys' fees when the interests of justice require it, and this authority is not barred by statute. The majority misinterprets the 1853 fee statute, which prior cases held did not limit a court's historic equity jurisdiction. The 'private attorney general' theory is a logical extension of the established 'common benefit' exception, which allows fee-shifting even without a monetary fund. This case meets the criteria for such an award: the litigation protected an important public right, the plaintiffs had no pecuniary interest justifying the high cost, and shifting the cost to Alyeska would effectively place the burden on the class of public beneficiaries. The Court's abdication of its equitable authority is a serious misstep that undermines the ability of citizens to enforce important public policies.
Analysis:
This landmark decision firmly rejected the burgeoning 'private attorney general' doctrine as a basis for awarding attorneys' fees, cementing the 'American Rule' as the default in federal courts. The ruling established a clear separation of powers on this issue, holding that the decision to shift litigation costs to encourage private enforcement of statutes is a policy matter for Congress, not the judiciary. This significantly impacted public interest litigation, forcing advocacy groups to lobby Congress for specific fee-shifting provisions in new or existing laws. The decision ensures that federal courts cannot create their own incentives for litigation based on their perception of a statute's importance, thereby limiting judicial policymaking and requiring legislative action for any future exceptions to the American Rule.
