Fox v. Vice
180 L. Ed. 2d 45, 131 S.Ct. 2205, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4182 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, a court may award a prevailing defendant attorney's fees in a suit involving both frivolous and non-frivolous claims, but only for the fees the defendant would not have incurred but for the frivolous claims.
Facts:
- Ricky Fox and incumbent Billy Ray Vice were candidates for chief of police in Vinton, Louisiana.
- During the election, Vice sent an anonymous letter to Fox threatening to publish damaging charges if Fox did not withdraw from the race.
- Vice also arranged for a third party to publicly accuse Fox of using racial slurs and to file a criminal complaint based on those false allegations.
- After prosecutors ignored the complaint, Vice leaked it to the press.
- Despite Vice's actions, Fox won the election.
- Vice was subsequently convicted of criminal extortion for his conduct during the campaign.
Procedural Posture:
- Ricky Fox sued Billy Ray Vice and the town of Vinton in Louisiana state court, alleging both state-law violations and federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana based on federal question jurisdiction.
- During summary judgment proceedings, Fox conceded his federal claims were invalid, and the District Court dismissed them with prejudice.
- The District Court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and remanded them back to state court.
- Vice moved in the District Court for an award of attorney's fees under § 1988, which the court granted in the full amount requested.
- Fox, as appellant, appealed the fee award to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's judgment with Vice as appellee.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the issue.
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 42 U.S.C. § 1988 permit a court to award a defendant attorney's fees for work on an entire case where a plaintiff asserted both frivolous and non-frivolous claims that are factually interrelated?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kagan
No. When a lawsuit contains both frivolous and non-frivolous claims, a prevailing defendant may recover only the attorney's fees incurred because of the frivolous claims. The court must apply a 'but-for' test, meaning the defendant is entitled only to the fees that would not have been paid but for the inclusion of the frivolous allegations. The purpose of § 1988 in this context is to relieve defendants of the costs of defending against baseless litigation, not to provide a windfall by shifting costs that would have been incurred anyway to defend against the plaintiff's non-frivolous claims. If legal work was necessary for defending both types of claims and would have been performed even without the frivolous claim, the cost cannot be shifted to the plaintiff. The lower court erred by awarding fees for the entire case based on the claims being 'interrelated' and the litigation's 'focus,' as this reasoning ignores the incremental harm standard required by the statute.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a circuit split by establishing a uniform 'but-for' causation standard for awarding attorney's fees to defendants in civil rights cases with mixed frivolous and non-frivolous claims. It provides a clearer, though potentially more difficult to apply, standard than the amorphous 'fairly attributable' or 'interrelated facts' tests previously used by some courts. The ruling carefully balances the need to deter plaintiffs from filing baseless claims with the policy of not chilling potentially meritorious civil rights litigation, ensuring that defendants are compensated only for the specific, additional burden imposed by frivolous allegations.
