The State of the SCOTUS Term--Part III: Access to Justice
Access to Lawyers
Under federal law, a prevailing plaintiff may collect fees for their attorney from the defendant in certain civil rights claims. According to a unanimous Supreme Court in Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises this rule allows Congress to ensure the enforcement of laws it views as especially important, even when a potential plaintiff lacks the money to hire an attorney. In the Court’s own words, when a civil rights plaintiff seeks an injunction,
he does so not for himself alone but also as a "private attorney general," vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority. If successful plaintiffs were routinely forced to bear their own attorneys' fees, few aggrieved parties would be in a position to advance the public interest by invoking the injunctive powers of the federal courts. Congress therefore enacted the provision for counsel fees - not simply to penalize litigants who deliberately advance arguments they know to be untenable but, more broadly, to encourage individuals . . . to seek judicial relief . . . .
Quoting one of the framers of this law, Justice Ginsburg argued that it is particularly important to provide civil rights plaintiffs with attorneys fees because such plaintiffs are often too poor to vindicate their rights without such assistance. “Because a vast majority of the victims of civil rights violations cannot afford legal counsel, they are unable to present their cases to the courts . . . .” Justice Ginsburg explained. “[This statute] is designed to give such persons effective access to the judicial process . . . .”
In Sole v. Wyner, the
According to an amicus brief joined by a diverse group of progressive and conservative advocacy groups, disallowing attorneys fees awards for preliminary injunctions would prevent many plaintiffs from ever seeking relief because “there are many cases in which the vindication of constitutional and statutory rights occurs solely through issuance of a preliminary injunction.” In these cases—cases where the plaintiff wants only temporary relief allowing the performance of a specific actt—the brief argues that denying attorneys fees would ultimately deny the plaintiff access to an attorney because “most plaintiffs are represented by solo practitioners and ‘local, small-firm lawyer[s],’ who must be able to obtain attorneys’ fees in order to take these cases."
At oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts also suggested that attorney fee awards in preliminary injunction cases would promote judicial economy, warning that “I would not want to get to a situation where people feel the need to artificially keep a case alive,” by continuing to litigate after winning a preliminary injunction, “simply to ensure their entitlement to attorney's fees.”
The President & the Establishment Clause
In Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Court considers the right of taxpayers to challenge Establishment Clause violations. For more on this case, see Part II of this series.
Gender, Race and the Wage Gap
In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber, the Court considers to what extent courts may hear claims against employers who pay lower wages to women and minorities. For more on this case, see Part I of this series.