E.L. v. Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation, 4:16-cv-00629

E.L., an African-American minor, sued Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation (VICC) under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 claiming a county-to-city transfer ban prevented him from enrolling in Gateway Science Academy and violated equal protection.
E.L.’s family moved from St. Louis city to St. Louis County; Gateway denied fourth-grade enrollment based on a policy excluding African‑American students living outside the city.
E.L. sought a preliminary injunction to remain at Gateway; VICC moved to dismiss for lack of standing and improper defendant.
The district court dismissed the suit and denied the injunction as moot; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding E.L. lacked standing because his injury was not fairly traceable to VICC.
VICC moved for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 as the prevailing party; VICC argued the suit was frivolous and that E.L. persisted after being placed on notice of defects.
The district court denied fees, finding E.L. advanced a plausible, defensible claim and stressing that awarding fees would chill public‑interest civil‑rights litigation raising novel theories.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant is entitled to attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 as the prevailing party	E.L. argued his claims were nonfrivolous and that standing could plausibly be based on VICC’s alleged role in limiting enrollment in city charter/magnet schools	VICC argued it prevailed on appeal and the suit was frivolous, unreasonable, and continued after VICC showed it was not a proper defendant	Denied. Court held E.L. presented a plausible claim; fees would unfairly chill public‑interest suits and post‑hoc dismissal does not make the claim frivolous
Whether E.L.’s claim was frivolous or without foundation after receiving VICC’s dismissal briefing	E.L. maintained he reasonably believed VICC’s discriminatory policy affected charter and magnet enrollment, so his suit had a good-faith basis	VICC contended E.L. continued despite overwhelming authority showing VICC only handled magnet schools and was unrelated to Gateway (a charter)	Denied. Court found the claim defensible and not clearly frivolous; plaintiff’s novel theory warranted protection against fee shifting

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (party is "prevailing" if succeeds on a significant issue and obtains some of the relief sought)
Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (prevailing party standard: at least some relief on the merits)
Casey v. City of Cabool, Mo., 12 F.3d 799 (8th Cir.) (prevailing party inquiry under § 1988)
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (defendant fee awards against plaintiff are appropriate only in narrow circumstances for frivolous suits)
Marquart v. Lodge 837, Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 26 F.3d 842 (8th Cir.) (narrow circumstances for awarding fees to prevailing defendants)
Fisher v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 619 F.3d 811 (8th Cir.) (courts must avoid post hoc reasoning to declare claims frivolous)
James v. City of Boise, 136 S. Ct. 685 (noting scrutiny of fee awards and considerations relevant to civil rights litigation)