What should it cost to make your voice heard if you think the government is infringing on your rights? Should the government be allowed to leave you with the attorney’s fees they owe you, even if you succeed in making them change their laws? These are the questions being answered in the case Lackey v. Stinnie, which was first heard in Charlottesville and is currently being deliberated on by the Supreme Court. The consequences of the Court’s decision could be grave — citizens could, in effect, be punished for and deterred from challenging the government for its actions. Governments must be accountable for the decisions they make, so neither Virginia nor any other state can prevent or punish a meritorious effort towards accountability. The Supreme Court must prioritize protecting the litigating power of the people against potentially tyrannical laws by their government.
In 2018, a group of Virginia residents challenged a state law that automatically suspended drivers who failed to pay certain fines and fees. A federal judge quickly noticed the law’s blatant problems under the Constitution, and issued a preliminary injunction suspending the law, a strong indication that the court was about to strike it down. Federal law under 42 U.S. Code Section 1988 mandates that, in civil rights lawsuits, the losing party incurs the legal fees of the “prevailing party.” However, the Virginia government knew that if the case had never been seen through, no one would technically have won, and the group of Virginia residents would have to foot their own bill.
In 2020, then-Governor Northam, with the overwhelming support of the General Assembly, repealed the part of the law in question. A letter from the Commissioner of the DMV, whose department would be responsible for paying the legal fees, to Senator Bill Stanley reveals the entire purpose of the repeal was to make the motorists, instead of themselves, shoulder their legal fees. In 2023, Fourth Circuit Court ruled to essentially nullify this maneuver and any similar ones in the future, and the case is now being heard before the Supreme Court.
Twenty years ago, the same Fourth Circuit Court declared that a plaintiff who secures a preliminary injunction, but not a final verdict, can never be a “prevailing party” with the right to claim attorney’s fees from the losing party. The Fourth Circuit's new solution, however, offers the more logical solution — even if a plaintiff’s case becomes moot, it does not mean they cannot still be awarded attorney’s fees. This is because since 2008 the Supreme Court has set a stricter standard that makes it harder to get a preliminary injunction by putting more weight on the initial review of the case's facts.
This approach ensures that compensation is handed out when it is truly deserved, and closes a loophole that allows governments to weasel their way out of responsibility. If governments make laws that even they understand will not hold up in court, they should incur the full cost of doing so to be discouraged from trying to do so again. It is a solution which, for the sake of the rights of all Virginians, must be upheld by the Supreme Court. Arguably, however, the more important consequence of this approach is that it lifts a heavy financial burden on citizens trying to do the right thing by challenging a harmful law.
Legal minutiae aside, this case speaks to broader problems surrounding money and justice. It is no secret that finances can drastically affect how or even if you access the justice system. In the criminal justice arena, a rich defendant can afford the finest defense lawyers and the most exorbitant bail, while a poor defendant trying to reenter society might struggle with basic court fees alone. Meanwhile, in civil lawsuits between private parties, wealthier parties can weaponize the legal system to intimidate their enemies. Should the Supreme Court rule against the plaintiff in Lackey v. Stinnie, this trend would, disastrously, spread to civil suits against the government.
There is a particular danger here for those in the Charlottesville area to be denied equal access to the law. The city in which this case was first heard happens to be home to a large, mainly affluent student and faculty body at U.Va., while simultaneously having a poverty rate nearly twice the national average. Allowing governments like the City of Charlottesville to game the system by making losing cases moot would make it so that even the most clear wins for plaintiffs might drive them bankrupt. This emboldens governments to employ an alarmingly dangerous mechanism to discourage people from challenging them in the first place. The future of a justice system accessible to all thus depends on the Supreme Court enabling a crucial protection mechanism for civil rights plaintiffs.
Some local governments have lobbied against the closing of this loophole that allows them to get away with paying the fees they justifiably owe plaintiffs. They have opposed the motorists’ claim on the grounds that plaintiffs’ attorneys would “engage in voluminous discovery” of laws that could be challenged to earn a quick buck. If this happened, they argue their small budgets might be overwhelmed. However, should the Court uphold the Fourth Circuit's ruling, judges would retain discretion in deciding who the “prevailing party” is, or if there is one. To be awarded attorney’s fees, the plaintiff would have to demonstrate good faith, therefore making it not any more likely to file myriad unsuccessful cases. Local governments like Albemarle County need not be worried.
A system where average citizens would not dare challenge their government lest they be bankrupted better resembles oligarchy than democracy. Governments should never be allowed to make an unconstitutional law and make its citizens pay the financial burden of removing it. The Supreme Court must work, and continue to work, towards making the justice system in America a level playing field for all. Upholding the Fourth Court’s decision in Lackey v. Stinnie marks one important step in doing so.
Viet Huynh is an opinion columnist who writes about politics for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the author alone
Read More
LETTER: Medical students stand in support of transgender youth
By Rachel Rezabek , Russell Hawes , Ishaan Rischie , Elianna Dunster , Kaile Maske , Zain Ahmad and Zoe Ziff | 22 minutes agoAs future physicians, we cannot remain silent, especially since U.Va. Health is one of the most comprehensive gender health centers in the country.
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | 23 hours agoIt is high time to resist these authoritative and dangerous actions before there are no federal avenues left for resistance.
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 4 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
