Kansas Judicial Watch v. Stout
653 F.3d 1230
10th Cir.2011Background
- KJR, Hart, and Rumsey sued Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging Canon provisions (Pledges, Commits, Solicitation).
- District court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the canons against candidates who answered the Questionnaire and sought related relief.
- Kansas Supreme Court amended Rule 601B in 2009, effectively narrowing/removing the challenged portions, mooting the case.
- The district court later denied attorney's fees, holding no material alteration of the legal relationship occurred since only status quo relief was obtained.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit held the preliminary injunction provided relief on the merits and unambiguous probable success, thus conferring prevailing-party status despite mootness.
- Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a preliminary injunction can confer prevailing-party status under § 1988 | Prevailing party where injunction granted relief on merits | Prevailing party status requires final judgment on merits | Yes; injunction can confer prevailing-party status when it provides relief on merits. |
| Whether the district court erred in treating mootness as destroying prevailing-party status | Mootness after Kansas Supreme Court action did not erase merits-based relief | Mootness could undermine relief | Mootness after mooting actions does not defeat prevailing-party status if merits relief was provided. |
| Whether the district court properly recognized relief on the merits in the injunction | Injunction provided relief sought against canons | Injunction preserved status quo; failure to obtain merits declarations | Injunction did provide relief on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782 (1989) (touchstone: material alteration of the legal relationship; relief on merits required for prevailing party)
- Dahlem v. Bd. of Educ., 901 F.2d 1508 (10th Cir. 1990) (preliminary injunction can confer prevailing-party status if unambiguous likelihood of success on merits)
- Biodiversity Conservation Alliance v. Stem, 519 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2008) (preliminary injunction must provide relief on merits; status may not attach if only preserves status quo)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (no catalyst theory; requires judicial imprimatur for prevailing party)
- Sole v. Wyner, 551 U.S. 74 (2007) (preliminary injunction that is reversed/undone by final merits ruling not a prevailing party)
- Select Milk Producers, Inc. v. Johanns, 400 F.3d 939 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (illustrative on merits-based relief and mootness)
- Watson v. Cnty. of Riverside, 300 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (preliminary injunction carries judicial imprimatur)