Sole v. Wyner
2007 U.S. LEXIS 6962, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1069, 551 U.S. 74 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff who obtains a preliminary injunction but ultimately loses on the merits of the case is not a "prevailing party" eligible for an award of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). The ultimate judgment on the merits supersedes any preliminary, temporary victory.
Facts:
- T. A. Wyner planned to create an anti-war artwork consisting of nude individuals forming a peace sign at a Florida state park.
- The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) informed Wyner that the display would violate the park's 'Bathing Suit Rule,' which mandated minimal clothing.
- Wyner had a prior 1995 settlement with the DEP for a similar event, which involved using a cloth screen to shield the nude performers from other park visitors.
- Based on the possibility of using a screen, Wyner obtained a preliminary injunction allowing her Valentine's Day 2003 display to proceed.
- During the event, a screen was put up, but the participants set up their display in front of the screen and later went into the water nude.
- Wyner later acknowledged that the participants had deliberately ignored the barrier.
Procedural Posture:
- T.A. Wyner sued Florida DEP officials in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, seeking injunctive relief.
- The District Court held an emergency hearing and granted Wyner's motion for a preliminary injunction.
- After the event occurred, the parties proceeded with litigation and filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the permanent injunction.
- The District Court denied Wyner's motion, granted summary judgment to the state officials, and entered a final judgment against Wyner on the merits.
- Despite Wyner's loss on the merits, the District Court awarded her attorney's fees for the portion of the litigation related to securing the preliminary injunction.
- The state officials (appellants) appealed the fee award to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and Wyner (appellee) did not appeal the merits decision.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the attorney's fee award.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Eleventh Circuit.
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 plaintiff who secures a preliminary injunction, but is later denied a permanent injunction in a final decision on the merits, qualify as a 'prevailing party' for the purpose of awarding attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
No. A plaintiff is not a 'prevailing party' if an initial victory, such as a preliminary injunction, is undone by a final judgment on the merits against her. The 'touchstone of the prevailing party inquiry' is a 'material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties,' which a transient and ultimately reversed preliminary order does not provide. The court reasoned that a preliminary injunction is, by its nature, provisional and based on a tentative assessment of the merits. In this case, the final adjudication on a fuller record superseded the court's initial, incorrect premise that a screen would be an adequate, less-restrictive alternative. Because the final judgment was for the defendants and the state's 'Bathing Suit Rule' remained fully enforceable against Wyner, she left the courthouse empty-handed, having gained no enduring change in the legal relationship between herself and the state officials. As the court stated, a plaintiff who 'secur[es] a preliminary injunction, then loses on the merits... has won a battle but lost the war.'
Analysis:
This decision provides a bright-line rule for determining 'prevailing party' status under federal fee-shifting statutes. It clarifies that interim, procedural victories are insufficient for an attorney's fee award if the party ultimately loses the case on its substantive merits. The ruling reinforces the principle that the final outcome and any enduring change in the parties' legal relationship are the determinative factors, discouraging fee litigation over temporary successes that are later nullified. This prevents a party who loses the war from being compensated for winning a preliminary battle.
