Phelps-Roper v. Koster, 815 F.3d 393

Background

Shirley Phelps‑Roper (Westboro Baptist Church member) sued Missouri officials in 2006 challenging funeral‑protest statutes (§§ 578.501–.503) as violating free speech, association, free exercise, and due process.
After interlocutory appellate success securing a preliminary injunction (appeals in 2007–2009), Phelps‑Roper amended to add defendants and 14 counts; several claims were later dismissed, consent‑judged, or found moot.
This Court (2013) held § 578.501 unconstitutional but upheld § 578.502 with the term “processions” severed, then remanded remaining claims to the district court.
On remand Phelps‑Roper voluntarily dismissed all but her due process claim (Count XIV); the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on that claim in March 2014.
Missouri repealed the challenged statutes in August 2014 while postjudgment motions were pending; the district court nonetheless denied relief and later awarded Phelps‑Roper reduced attorneys’ fees ($113,425.54 of $298,841.25 requested) using a 2/14 mathematical reduction.
The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgments on the due process claim as moot, instructed dismissal of Count XIV, and reversed the fee award as an abuse of discretion, remanding for recalculation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Phelps‑Roper’s due process claim remained justiciable after Missouri repealed the statutes	Repeal mooted the claim; district court should have vacated and dismissed Count XIV	The statutes’ repeal did not preclude judgment on the pending claim (implicit)	Repeal rendered the claim moot; judgments on Count XIV vacated and district court instructed to dismiss as moot
Whether the district court abused discretion by reducing fee award using 2/14 arithmetic after Jan 2009	The mathematical reduction ignored overall degree of success, interrelated claims, consent judgments, and mooted claims; therefore it undercompensated prevailing party	The district court’s reduction was a reasonable reflection of partial success on the amended complaint	District court abused its discretion: mathematical 2/14 reduction improper and applied inaccurately; remand to recalculate fees consistent with Hensley principles

Key Cases Cited

Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (1975) (Art. III requires an ongoing case or controversy)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar method and adjust for degree of success; disfavor of purely mathematical reductions)
Munsingwear, Inc. v. Monrosa, 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (vacatur of judgments when cases become moot on appeal)
Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (2011) (vacatur preserves review rights when case becomes moot)
Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dept. of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (prevailing party concept includes consent judgments and other forms of relief)
Valero Terrestrial Corp. v. Paige, 211 F.3d 112 (4th Cir. 2000) (district courts commonly vacate merit judgments after statutory repeal)
Teague v. Cooper, 720 F.3d 973 (8th Cir. 2013) (vacatur following mootness on statutory repeal)
Phelps‑Roper v. Koster, 713 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2013) (held § 578.501 unconstitutional; § 578.502 saved by severance)
Phelps‑Roper v. City of Manchester, Mo., 697 F.3d 678 (8th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (government interest in protecting citizens from unwanted speech extends beyond home privacy)
O’Neal v. Remington Arms Co., 803 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Ringo v. Lombardi, 677 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 2012) (case/controversy must exist at all stages)
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Barton, 223 F.3d 770 (8th Cir. 2000) (rejects fee awards tied strictly to number of claims)
Lowry ex rel. Crow v. Watson Chapel Sch. Dist., 540 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2008) (rejects arithmetically simplistic fee calculations)