Supreme 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 The drivers won an early court order blocking enforcement of the law, but then Virginia repealed the measure and the case ended before the judge reached a final determination.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 Legal Aid Justice Center, which brought the case, called the ruling “a devastating blow to civil rights enforcement" that executive director Angela Ciolfi said would “mean more civil rights violations and fewer remedies.”