State of Texas v. United States of America, 49 F. Supp. 3d 27

After the 2010 Census Texas adopted new congressional and state legislative maps (Plans C185, H283, S148) and sought Section 5 preclearance via a three-judge court rather than administrative review; multiple parties intervened to oppose preclearance.
The three-judge panel held a bench trial and denied preclearance, finding retrogression and discriminatory purpose as to some plans; Texas appealed to the Supreme Court.
While the appeal was pending, Texas repealed the challenged plans and enacted replacement maps substantially similar to interim maps used in related litigation.
The Supreme Court decided Shelby County v. Holder, invalidating the Section 4(b) coverage formula, and the Supreme Court vacated and remanded this Court’s preclearance decision; the district court later dismissed the case as moot.
The defendant-intervenors (Fee Applicants) moved for attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(e) and § 1988; Texas filed a three-page “Advisory” relying solely on Shelby County and did not substantively oppose the fee motions.
The district judge found Fee Applicants were prevailing parties before the vacatur, that Shelby County did not eliminate their entitlement given the real-world relief obtained, found no special-circumstances bar, and awarded the requested fees and costs as uncontested and reasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether intervenors are "prevailing parties" entitled to fees under §1973l(e)/§1988	Texas: Shelby County effectively nullifies preclearance litigation so intervenors cannot be prevailing parties	Intervenors: Court denial of preclearance and Texas’s repeal/replacement maps gave them the relief sought	Intervenors were prevailing parties when judgment issued; subsequent vacatur/mootness did not negate that status
Whether Shelby County retroactively defeats fee claims based on prior court-ordered relief	Shelby County removes the legal basis for preclearance and therefore defeats fee recovery	Intervenors: real-world vindication (maps never used; state adopted new maps) supports fees despite later vacatur	Shelby County did not strip intervenors of fee entitlement given timing and real-world change in legal relations
Whether "special circumstances" justify denying fees despite prevailing-party status	Texas implied the preclearance regime was unconstitutional and intervenors aggravated delay	Intervenors documented substantial, necessary participation and impact on outcome	No special circumstances; award of fees is not unjustified
Whether requested fees and costs are reasonable and recoverable	Texas largely declined to contest reasonableness, relying on Shelby County only	Intervenors provided detailed contemporaneous billing, rates, and cost breakdowns	Fees and costs found reasonable and uncontested; awarded as requested

Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (defines "prevailing party" as requiring judicially sanctioned change in legal relationship)
Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013) (invalidated Section 4(b) coverage formula of the Voting Rights Act)
National Black Police Ass’n v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 168 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (vacatur/mootness does not always negate fee entitlement where injunction altered legal relations)
Grano v. Barry, 783 F.2d 1104 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (injunction that produced lasting change supports prevailing-party status)
Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (1990) (examines fee recovery where intervening events moot appeals; does not categorically bar district-court prevailing-party finding)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar method for calculating reasonable attorney’s fees)
Commissioners Court of Medina County v. United States, 683 F.2d 435 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (intervenors in VRA litigation may be eligible for fees; discussed catalyst theory pre-Buckhannon)