St. Louis Effort For AIDS v. Chlora Lindley-Myers
877 F.3d 1069
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- St. Louis Effort for AIDS (Effort for AIDS) and Planned Parenthood sued to enjoin Missouri’s Health Insurance Marketplace Innovation Act of 2013 (HIMIA).
- District court granted a preliminary injunction on preemption grounds; the Eighth Circuit partially affirmed; on remand the district court granted summary judgment to Effort for AIDS, finding three HIMIA provisions preempted.
- Effort for AIDS sought attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), asserting a substantial First Amendment claim in addition to the successful preemption claims.
- The district court denied fees, holding that (1) the First Amendment claim was substantial but (2) it did not arise from a common nucleus of operative fact with the preemption claims, so § 1988(b) did not authorize fees.
- The state argued that Smith v. Robinson requires a closer reasonable relationship than mere common origin (passage of HIMIA) before fees may be awarded when the prevailing theory is non-fee-generating.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1988(b) authorizes fees when plaintiff prevails solely on non-fee-generating preemption claims but also asserted a substantial First Amendment claim | Effort for AIDS: fees are allowed because the substantial First Amendment claim and preemption claims arise from the same enactment (HIMIA) and thus a common nucleus of operative fact | State: mere common origin is insufficient under Smith; claims must be reasonably related and more tightly connected than here | Reversed: the common-nucleus test is satisfied; the claims are reasonably related because they seek the same relief under alternative theories arising from the HIMIA enactment, so § 1988(b) may authorize fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers Group, Inc. v. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, 683 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2012) (articulates common-nucleus test for related claims)
- Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984) (requires reasonable relationship between fee-generating and prevailing non-fee claims)
- Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122 (1980) (legislative intent supports fees when pendent constitutional claims are substantial)
- Baker Botts LLP v. ASARCO LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2158 (2015) (American Rule and need for explicit statutory fee authority)
- Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1378 (2015) (Supremacy Clause does not itself create § 1983 remedies)