Close Menu
POTUS News
  • Home
  • Health & Welfare
    • Environmental & Energy Policies
    • Historical & Cultural Context
    • Immigration & Border Policies
  • Innovation
    • International Relations
    • Judiciary & Legal Matters
    • Presidential News
    • Regional Spotlights
  • National Security
  • Scandals & Investigations
    • Social Issues & Advocacy
    • Technology & Innovation
  • White House News
    • U.S. Foreign Policy
    • U.S. Government Agencies
    • U.S. Legislative Updates
    • U.S. Political Landscape

Subscribe to Updates

Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss our latest news

Subscribe my Newsletter for New Posts & tips Let's stay updated!

What's Hot

Justice Department’s early moves on voting and elections signal a shift from its traditional role

June 15, 2025

How AI is disrupting the advertising industry

June 15, 2025

What Americans think about Pope Leo XIV

June 15, 2025
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
POTUS NewsPOTUS News
  • Home
  • Health & Welfare
    • Environmental & Energy Policies
    • Historical & Cultural Context
    • Immigration & Border Policies
  • Innovation
    • International Relations
    • Judiciary & Legal Matters
    • Presidential News
    • Regional Spotlights
  • National Security
  • Scandals & Investigations
    • Social Issues & Advocacy
    • Technology & Innovation
  • White House News
    • U.S. Foreign Policy
    • U.S. Government Agencies
    • U.S. Legislative Updates
    • U.S. Political Landscape
POTUS News
Home » Supreme Court rules against drivers in a case advocates say could make civil-rights claims harder
Judiciary & Legal Matters

Supreme Court rules against drivers in a case advocates say could make civil-rights claims harder

potusBy potusFebruary 25, 2025No Comments3 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Telegram LinkedIn Tumblr WhatsApp Email
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Telegram Email


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 The drivers won an early court order blocking enforcement of the law, but then Virginia repealed the measure and the case ended before the judge reached a final determination.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.”



Source link

Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
potus
  • Website

Related Posts

Supreme Court rules for girl with epilepsy in case over access to education

June 12, 2025

Supreme Court revives suit from Atlanta family whose home was raided by FBI

June 12, 2025

Supreme Court to weigh death penalty for intellectually disabled man

June 6, 2025

Supreme Court rejects GOP appeal, allows provisional ballots in Pennsylvania

June 6, 2025

The cases left on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket

June 6, 2025

Supreme Court allows DOGE team to access Social Security systems

June 6, 2025
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

U.S. Foreign Policy

Why the U.S. Will Lose Trump’s Trade War

June 12, 2025

The German high command learned a key lesson after losing World War I: Never fight…

IR Experts Give Trump’s Second Term Very Low Marks – Foreign Policy

June 11, 2025

Ro Khanna on Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and China

June 5, 2025

How Gen Z Thinks About Foreign Policy

June 5, 2025
Editors Picks

Which US states could be hit hardest by Trump’s Canada and Mexico tariffs? | Business and Economy News

March 5, 2025

China sets 5 percent growth target despite trade war with US | Trade War News

March 5, 2025

As Trump roils stock markets, investors are betting big on Europe’s defence | Military

March 5, 2025

Climate crisis threatens Pakistan’s bees and honey trade | Climate Crisis News

March 4, 2025
About Us
About Us

Welcome to POTUS News, your go-to source for comprehensive news and in-depth analysis on President Trump, the White House, and U.S. governance. Our mission is to provide timely, reliable, and detailed coverage on key political, economic, and social issues under President Trump’s administration, as well as the broader U.S. government.

Our Picks

Justice Department’s early moves on voting and elections signal a shift from its traditional role

June 15, 2025

How AI is disrupting the advertising industry

June 15, 2025

What Americans think about Pope Leo XIV

June 15, 2025

How AI is disrupting the advertising industry

June 15, 2025

Google, Scale AI’s largest customer, plans split after Meta deal

June 14, 2025

What I learned following Jensen Huang around Europe

June 14, 2025

Tesla faces protests in Austin over Musk’s robotaxi plans

June 13, 2025
© 2025 potusnews. Designed by potusnews.
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • DMCA
  • Privacy Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.