Court rules against drivers in a case
advocates say could make
civil-rights claims harder
By Lindsay Whitehurst
Associated Press
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 The drivers won an early court order blocking enforcement of the law, but then Virginia repealed the measure and the case ended before the judge reached a final determination.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."
Associated Press
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."
Oklahoma inmate Richard Glossip's murder
conviction and death sentence thrown out
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out the murder conviction and death penalty for Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma man who was found guilty in the killing of a motel owner but has steadfastly maintained his innocence and averted multiple attempts by the state to execute him.
Glossip's wife, Lea, called the decision "an answered prayer."
Prosecutors' decision to allow a key witness to give testimony they knew to be false violated Glossip's constitutional right to a fair trial, the justices ruled in a case that produced a rare alliance of his lawyers and the state's Republican attorney general in support of a new day in court for Glossip.
"Glossip is entitled to a new trial," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for five justices.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, voting to uphold the conviction and death sentence, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett would have allowed a state appeals court to decide how to proceed.
Thomas wrote that the majority had "cast aside" the interests of victim Barry Van Treese's family. The victim's relatives had told the high court that they wanted to see Glossip executed. A message left with Van Treese's brother, Ken Van Treese, was not immediately returned Tuesday.
Don Knight, Glossip's attorney, said the court was right to overturn the conviction because prosecutors hid critical evidence from the defense team. "Today was a victory for justice and fairness in our judicial system," Knight said in a statement. "Rich Glossip, who has maintained his innocence for 27 years, will now be given the chance to have the fair trial that he has always been denied."
Glossip's wife wrote in a text to The Associated Press, "Rich and I opened the decision together on the phone this morning, knowing it would be a life-changing moment. To say that we are overcome with emotion is an understatement. We are deeply grateful. Today is truly an answered prayer."
Glossip, who currently is housed at the maximum-security Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester, is expected to remain in prison, at least until the state decides whether to retry him, said Phil Bacharach, a spokesman for Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond.
Oklahoma County District Attorney Vicki Behenna, a Democrat, said Tuesday she plans to review the Supreme Court's opinion and then discuss with Drummond what will happen next.
Behenna has previously said she would not consider the death penalty in the case.
Drummond, who has said he does not believe Glossip is innocent, said in a statement he was "thankful we now have a fresh opportunity to see that justice is done."
Oklahoma's top criminal appeals court had repeatedly upheld the conviction and sentence, even after the state sided with Glossip.
Glossip was convicted and sentenced to death in the 1997 killing in Oklahoma City of Van Treese, his former boss, in what prosecutors have alleged was a murder-for-hire scheme.
Glossip has always denied killing Van Treese, although he acknowledged misleading investigators in the aftermath of the crime. Another man, Justin Sneed, admitted robbing Van Treese and beating him to death with a baseball bat but testified he only did so after Glossip promised to pay him $10,000. Sneed received a life sentence in exchange for his testimony and was the key witness against Glossip.
In 2023, Drummond said boxes of new evidence persuaded him that Glossip's trial was not fair.
The new evidence showed that prosecutors knew Sneed lied on the witness stand about his psychiatric condition and his reason for taking the mood-stabilizing drug lithium, Sotomayor wrote. Drummond also was concerned about a box of evidence in the case that was destroyed, she wrote. The evidence included motel receipts, a shower curtain and masking tape that Knight has said could have potentially proven Glossip's innocence.
At least five justices voted in 2023 to block Glossip's execution while his case played out. Thirteen months ago, the high court agreed to take up the claim that his trial was unfair. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not take part in the case, presumably because he participated in it at an earlier stage when he was an appeals court judge.
Oklahoma has set execution dates nine times for Glossip. He has eaten three "last meals" and been married twice while awaiting execution.
The court faced two legal issues, whether Glossip's rights were violated because the evidence wasn't turned over and whether the Oklahoma court decision upholding the conviction and sentence, reached after the state's position changed, should be allowed to stand.
Barrett, in her separate opinion, agreed with the majority that the appellate decision should be thrown out but was not convinced that the evidence clearly showed prosecutors knew Sneed testified falsely.
In Glossip's first hearing before the Supreme Court, the court stopped his execution in 2015, then ruled against him by a 5-4 vote in upholding Oklahoma's lethal-injection process.
Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan, also part of Tuesday's majority, dissented 10 years ago.
Glossip avoided execution then only because of a mix-up in the drugs that were to be used.
Glossip was initially convicted in 1998 but won a new trial ordered by a state appeals court. He was convicted again in 2004.
–––––
Associated Press writer Sean Murphy contributed to this report from Oklahoma City.
