Oral Argument: Lackey v. Stinnie | Case No. 23-621 | Date Argued: 10/8/24
Oral Argument: Lackey v. Stinnie | Case No. 23-621 | Date Argued: 10/8/24  
Podcast: SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions
Published On: Tue Oct 08 2024
Description: Case Info: Lackey v. Stinnie | Case No. 23-621 | Date Argued: 10/8/24 | Date Decided: 2/25/25Link to Docket: Here.Questions Presented:Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties' legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.Holding: The plaintiff drivers here—who gained only preliminary injunctive relief before this action became moot—do not qualify as “prevailing part[ies]” eligible for attorney’s fees under §1988(b) because no court conclusively resolved their claims by granting enduring judicial relief on the merits that materially altered the legal relationship between the parties.Result: Reversed and remanded.Voting Breakdown: Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined.  Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates: For petitioner: Erika L. Maley, Solicitor General, Richmond, Va.; and Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Brian D. Schmalzbach, Richmond, Va.Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.