In another demonstration of the high cost to governmental entities of litigating First Amendment claims, a Texas federal magistrate judge in Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Abbott, (WD TX, Nov. 27, 2023) has recommended an award of attorneys' fees to FFRF of $342,566 (plus costs of $3,957). At issue in the case was the removal of FFRF's "Bill of Right Nativity Exhibit" from the Texas state capitol. The case twice made its way to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (see prior postings 1, 2).
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Tuesday, November 28, 2023
Thursday, November 10, 2022
Parties Agree To $2 Million + Attorneys' Fees in Christian Flag Case
After plaintiffs' win in the Supreme Court in Shurtleff v. City of Boston (the Christian flag case), plaintiffs sought to recover attorneys' fees and costs for the five years of litigation. On Nov. 8, the parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement in the case in a Massachusetts federal district court. The City of Boston will pay $2,125,000 to Liberty Counsel, attorneys for plaintiffs. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the settlement.
Tuesday, February 01, 2022
Cert. Filed In Synagogue Picketing Case While Plaintiffs Are Ordered To Pay $158K Attorneys' Fees Of Picketers
A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed recently in Brysk v. Herskovitz, (Sup. Ct., filed Jan. 19, 2022). In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a suit by synagogue members against anti-Israel pickets who have picketed services at the Beth Israel Synagogue in Ann Arbor, Michigan every week since 2003. A majority held that the picketers were protected by the First Amendment. (See prior posting.)
Meanwhile, a Michigan federal district court ordered plaintiffs in the case to pay defendants' attorneys' fees of $158,721.75. Gerber v. Herskovitz, (ED MI, Jan. 25, 2022). The court said in part:
The Court is aware that awarding attorney fees to defendants under §1988 may have a chilling effect on the willingness to bring legitimate civil rights claims, and it acknowledges that “awarding attorney fees against a nonprevailing plaintiff in a civil rights action is ‘an extreme sanction, and must be limited to truly egregious cases of misconduct.’” ... However, this is that rare case where such an award is appropriate and warranted. Plaintiffs failed to allege a basic element for each of their claims; their claims were groundless from the outset. As Judge Clay observed, it is “clear that [Plaintiffs brought] this suit to ‘silence a speaker with whom [they] disagree,’” which the First Amendment does not permit....
Wednesday, December 08, 2021
Loss On COVID Houses Of Worship Restrictions Proves Costly To New York
After extensive litigation, in February a New York federal district court (without opposition from the state) issued an injunction against New York state's COVID-19 fixed capacity and percentage capacity limits on houses of worship” in red and orange zones. (See prior posting). Now in Agudath Israel of America v. Hochul, (ED NY, Dec. 6, 2021), a New York federal district court awarded to plaintiffs attorneys' fees totaling $446,521.94 which must be paid by the state of New York.
Friday, August 23, 2019
6th Circuit Decides 2 Cases Growing Out of Kim Davis' Marriage License Refusals
The 3-judge panel split 2-1 in their analysis of why Davis was not entitled to qualified immunity. Judge Griffin, joined by Judge White, held that Obergefell clearly established a right for same-sex marriage and eliminated the need to use a tiers-of-scrutiny analysis in cases such as this. Judge Bush held that a tiers-of-scrutiny analysis should be used, but that Davis' conduct does not survive even rational basis review.
In a related case, Miller v. Caudill, (6th Cir., Aug. 23, 2019), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the award of $222,695 in attorneys' fees to several same-sex couples who had obtained a preliminary injunction against Davis' policy, but litigated no further after Davis' deputy clerks agreed to issue the licenses. The 6th Circuit concluded that plaintiffs qualified as a "prevailing party" entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 USC §1988, and that these fees should be paid by the state of Kentucky rather than Rowan County. The Court said in part:
A win is a win—regardless of whether the winner runs up the score. To prevail, then, plaintiffs didn’t need to obtain duplicative relief in every form that they originally sought it. They wanted the opportunity to obtain marriage licenses in Rowan County, and the preliminary injunction gave them exactly that.Louisville Courier Journal reports on this decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]
Friday, November 09, 2018
Attorneys Get Fee Award In Trinity Lutheran Case
Sunday, August 19, 2018
Court Awards Attorneys' Fees In Contraceptive Mandate Case
Thursday, February 22, 2018
Supreme Court Defines Prisoner Contributions To Attorney Fee Awards
Thursday, February 15, 2018
City Considering Crowdfunding To Pay Ten Commandments Litigation Costs
Saturday, July 22, 2017
Plaintiffs Awarded Attorneys' Fees In Suit Against County Clerk Kim Davis
In this case, the Plaintiffs “prevailed by every measure of victory.” The relief Plaintiffs obtained—the ability to secure marriage licenses and marry—was “preliminary” in name only. It is not the “fleeting” success that fails to establish prevailing-party status. After the Court obtained compliance with the Preliminary Injunction Orders, Plaintiffs received marriage licenses. And once the plaintiff-couples received their marriage licenses, their rights were not subject to revocation….
... Couples continued to receive marriage licenses after the Kentucky General Assembly amended the law – albeit, on a form Davis felt more comfortable with. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction success materially altered their legal relationship with Davis, and that court-ordered change was enduring and irrevocable. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs “prevailed” within the meaning of § 1988 and are entitled to attorneys’ fees.The court also held that the state of Kentucky, not Rowan County, is liable for the attorneys’ fees. AP reporting on the decision says Davis plans to appeal, but the state of Kentucky has not yet decided whether it will appeal the ruling. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]