646 F.3d 992
7th Cir.2011Background
- Seventh Circuit case involving NRA and individual plaintiffs challenging Chicago and Oak Park gun ordinances that restricted handguns in homes, following Heller.
- Supreme Court held in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment applies to states and municipalities, affecting the litigants' claims.
- After McDonald, Chicago and Oak Park repealed their ordinances; district court initially dismissed as moot but plaintiffs challenged fee eligibility.
- District court determined plaintiffs were not prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and denied fees, applying Buckhannon and Zessar.
- Appellate posture: plaintiffs appeal district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees; the district court’s mootness ruling is under review alongside fee eligibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did plaintiffs prevail for § 1988 fees? | NRA argued Supreme Court victory, involving application of the Second Amendment to states, constitutes prevailing status. | Chicago/Oak Park contended no prevailing party since mootness after repeal and no final favorable judgment at district level. | Yes; Supreme Court decision counted as prevailing. |
| Does post-decision legislative repeal defeat prevailing-party status? | McDonald judgment remained live; repeal did not undermine the favorable Supreme Court ruling. | Zessar's mootness doctrine defeats fee award when litigation becomes moot before final judgment. | No; post-McDonald repeal did not deprive plaintiffs of prevailing-party status. |
| Is Buckhannon applicable to award of fees when Supreme Court decision resolves the dispute? | Buckhannon requires a judicially altered legal status; McDonald granted that status, satisfying prevailing-party standard. | Buckhannon should apply; mootness and absence of final district judgment bar fees. | Buckhannon does not bar fees; Supreme Court decision suffices as a judgment altering status. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (prevailing-party status requires a judicially sanctioned change in the party's legal relationship)
- Zessar v. Keith, 536 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2008) (mootness can bar fee awards if no valid judgment entered)
- U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1994) (mootness does not always prevent relief but affects judgments and fee awards)
- Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754 (U.S. 1980) (triable issue does not guarantee prevailing status without final resolution)
- Sole v. Wyner, 551 U.S. 74 (U.S. 2007) (preliminary relief may not establish prevailing party status pending final disposition)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. 2010) (Second Amendment applies to states and municipalities)