Issues
- Judicial Selection
- Voting Rights Act
- Marriage Equality
- Fixing the Senate
- The Corporate Court
- Supreme Court Ethics Reform
- Civil Justice
- Crude Justice
Receive updates on current initiatives and breaking news.
Fox v. Vice
What’s at stake?
The balance between allowing people whose civil rights are violated to seek justice in court, and protecting defendants when suits are deemed frivolous.
Issue:
Whether a plaintiff in a civil rights action must pay federal statutory attorney’s fees when the plaintiff’s federal claims are deemed frivolous but the state claims are not.
Whether a plaintiff in a civil rights action must pay federal statutory attorney’s fees when the plaintiff’s federal claims are deemed frivolous but the state claims are not.
Decision date:
June 6, 2011
June 6, 2011
Outcome:
9-0 in favor of Fox. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion.
9-0 in favor of Fox. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion.
What the court held:
Ricky Fox, a candidate for police chief in Vinton, Louisiana, was the victim of an extortion plot engineered by the incumbent chief. The incumbent was convicted of criminal extortion as a result of the plot. Fox sued the incumbent in a state court for federal civil rights violations and related claims based on state law. The Fifth Circuit deemed Fox’s federal claims to be frivolous but did not address the merits of his state claims. The court also ordered Fox to pay all of the convicted extortionist’s legal fees based on a federal statute allowing the court to order payment of fees to the successful party when a claim is deemed frivolous. Fox argued that the court could not award the defendant all of his attorney’s fees when only federal claims are deemed frivolous but state claims requiring an examination of the same facts are not.
Ricky Fox, a candidate for police chief in Vinton, Louisiana, was the victim of an extortion plot engineered by the incumbent chief. The incumbent was convicted of criminal extortion as a result of the plot. Fox sued the incumbent in a state court for federal civil rights violations and related claims based on state law. The Fifth Circuit deemed Fox’s federal claims to be frivolous but did not address the merits of his state claims. The court also ordered Fox to pay all of the convicted extortionist’s legal fees based on a federal statute allowing the court to order payment of fees to the successful party when a claim is deemed frivolous. Fox argued that the court could not award the defendant all of his attorney’s fees when only federal claims are deemed frivolous but state claims requiring an examination of the same facts are not.
The Court, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Kagan, stated that, “if a frivolous claim occasioned the attorney’s fees at issue, a court may decide that the defendant should not have to pay them.” However, the opinion added that, “if the defendant would have incurred those fees anyway, to defend against non-frivolous claims, then a court has no basis for transferring the expense to the plaintiff.” The Court opposed a fee-shifting system that would allow a defendant to recover all attorneys’ fees when only some claims were deemed frivolous because it “would furnish windfalls to some defendants, making them better off because they were subject to a suit including frivolous claims.” Though it will be for lower courts to decide the breakdown, the Court noted that the district court’s analysis suggested that Vice’s attorneys would have done much the same work even if Fox had not brought the federal civil rights claims that were deemed frivolous.
Merit briefs:
- Brief for Petitioner Ricky D. Fox
- Reply brief for Petitioner Ricky D. Fox
- Brief for Respondent, Billy Ray Vice, Chief of Police for the Town of Vinton, and the Town of Vinton
- Declaration of Joshua Rosenkranz in Support of Letter Brief
Amicus briefs:
- Brief for the Liberty Institute, CATO Institute, the Independence Law Center, Institute for Justice Texas Chapter, and the James Madison Center for Free Speech in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Impact Fund, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Legal Aid Society of New York City, the National Employment Lawyers Association, New York, the National Fair Housing Alliance, People for the American Way Foundation, and Public Justice in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Arkansas, Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming in Support of Respondent
- Brief of the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the International City/County Management Association, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the International Municipal Lawyers Association in Support of Respondent



