Court rules against drivers in a case advocates say could make civil-rights claims harder
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Tuesday that people who win early rulings in civil rights cases won’t necessarily be able to recover their legal fees, a finding that both conservative and liberal groups had argued could make it harder to fight for people’s rights in court.
The high court ruled 7-2 against Virginia drivers who sued after their licenses were suspended under a law they argued was unconstitutional. The drivers won an early court order blocking enforcement of the law, but then Virginia repealed the measure and the case ended before the judge reached a final determination.
Most of the time, each side pays its own legal costs in court. But plaintiffs who win civil rights cases can get the losing side to pay their legal fees under an exception to the law aimed at making it easier for people to press those claims in court.
In the Virginia case, the state petitioned to the justices after an appeals court found it should pay the drivers’ attorneys’ fees. The state argued that because the drivers had won a preliminary injunction rather than a final court determination, taxpayer dollars shouldn’t have to cover their legal fees.
Advocacy groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Second Amendment-supporting Firearms Policy Coalition had weighed in on the side of the drivers. They said many cases are determined at the preliminary injunction stage and fewer people would be willing to challenge the government in court if they might have to bear the burden of potentially hefty legal fees even if they make a persuasive case.
But the Supreme Court found that winning at an early stage isn’t enough, since the outcome can change after a trial, and plaintiffs must win on the merits to recoup their legal fees.
“A plaintiff who secures a preliminary injunction has achieved only temporary success at an intermediary ‘stage of the suit,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
The concern that governments could derail a case by changing a law if they lose at the preliminary injunction stage are only speculative, and apply to only a small number of cases, the majority found. The opinion from Roberts was joined by his five fellow conservatives as well as a liberal-leaning justice, Elena Kagan. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
The high court ruled 7-2 against Virginia drivers who sued after their licenses were suspended under a law they argued was unconstitutional. The drivers won an early court order blocking enforcement of the law, but then Virginia repealed the measure and the case ended before the judge reached a final determination.
Most of the time, each side pays its own legal costs in court. But plaintiffs who win civil rights cases can get the losing side to pay their legal fees under an exception to the law aimed at making it easier for people to press those claims in court.
In the Virginia case, the state petitioned to the justices after an appeals court found it should pay the drivers’ attorneys’ fees. The state argued that because the drivers had won a preliminary injunction rather than a final court determination, taxpayer dollars shouldn’t have to cover their legal fees.
Advocacy groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Second Amendment-supporting Firearms Policy Coalition had weighed in on the side of the drivers. They said many cases are determined at the preliminary injunction stage and fewer people would be willing to challenge the government in court if they might have to bear the burden of potentially hefty legal fees even if they make a persuasive case.
But the Supreme Court found that winning at an early stage isn’t enough, since the outcome can change after a trial, and plaintiffs must win on the merits to recoup their legal fees.
“A plaintiff who secures a preliminary injunction has achieved only temporary success at an intermediary ‘stage of the suit,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
The concern that governments could derail a case by changing a law if they lose at the preliminary injunction stage are only speculative, and apply to only a small number of cases, the majority found. The opinion from Roberts was joined by his five fellow conservatives as well as a liberal-leaning justice, Elena Kagan. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
Court seems likely to rule for Ohio woman claiming job bias because she’s straight
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seemed likely Wednesday to side with an Ohio woman who claims she suffered sex discrimination from her employer because she is straight.
The outcome of the case could remove an additional requirement that some courts apply when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated a way of resolving the case, that seemed to enjoy broad support among his colleagues.
“Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether you are gay or straight, is prohibited. The rules are the same whichever way it goes,” Kavanaugh said.
The justices heard arguments in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years.
Ames contends she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames.
The question for the justices is that the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit and several other appeals courts covering 20 states and the District of Columbia apply a higher standard when members of a majority group make discrimination claims. People alleging workplace bias have to show “background circumstances,” including that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group.
The appeals court noted that Ames didn’t provide any such circumstances.
Ohio Solicitor General T. Elliot Gaiser told the justices that the officials who made the job decisions did not even know Ames’ sexual orientation.
But even Geiser didn’t object too much to the narrow outcome that seemed most likely. “Everyone here agrees that everyone should be treated equally,” Gaiser said.
His concession prompted Justice Neil Gorsuch to note, “We’re in radical agreement on that today.”
America First Legal and other conservative groups filed briefs arguing that members of majority groups are as likely to face job discrimination, if not more so, because of diversity, equity and inclusion policies.
The outcome of the case could remove an additional requirement that some courts apply when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated a way of resolving the case, that seemed to enjoy broad support among his colleagues.
“Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether you are gay or straight, is prohibited. The rules are the same whichever way it goes,” Kavanaugh said.
The justices heard arguments in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years.
Ames contends she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames.
The question for the justices is that the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit and several other appeals courts covering 20 states and the District of Columbia apply a higher standard when members of a majority group make discrimination claims. People alleging workplace bias have to show “background circumstances,” including that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group.
The appeals court noted that Ames didn’t provide any such circumstances.
Ohio Solicitor General T. Elliot Gaiser told the justices that the officials who made the job decisions did not even know Ames’ sexual orientation.
But even Geiser didn’t object too much to the narrow outcome that seemed most likely. “Everyone here agrees that everyone should be treated equally,” Gaiser said.
His concession prompted Justice Neil Gorsuch to note, “We’re in radical agreement on that today.”
America First Legal and other conservative groups filed briefs arguing that members of majority groups are as likely to face job discrimination, if not more so, because of diversity, equity and inclusion policies.
