65 F.4th 280
6th Cir.2023Background
- In April 2020 Theodore Roberts, Sally O’Boyle, and Randall Daniel attended Easter services at Maryville Baptist Church in Kentucky despite Governor Beshear’s COVID-19 orders banning most mass gatherings (including religious services) and restricting interstate travel; violation carried misdemeanor exposure.
- State officials logged their attendance and warned of possible enforcement; the three sued the Governor, the county attorney, and the state health secretary seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and to enjoin prosecution for attending church.
- The district court and then the Sixth Circuit issued preliminary injunctions: the Sixth Circuit enjoined the ban on religious services as likely violating the Free Exercise Clause; a separate injunction addressed the travel restriction.
- Kentucky later revised its orders (and the legislature curtailed the Governor’s emergency power), and the case was ultimately dismissed as moot; the congregants then sought attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
- The district court awarded $272,142.50 in fees; Governor Beshear appealed, arguing the congregants were not prevailing parties and that the fee award was an abuse of discretion.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed: it held the congregants were prevailing parties because the preliminary injunctions materially and enduringly altered the parties’ legal relationship (including preventing prosecution), and the district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating the fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a preliminary injunction can make plaintiffs "prevailing parties" under § 1988 | The injunctions changed the legal relationship, removed enforcement threat, and were based on likelihood of success, so they suffice | Preliminary injunctions are provisional; prevailing-party status requires final relief | The court held prelim injunctions can confer prevailing-party status when they materially and enduringly alter the parties’ legal relationship and rest on likelihood of success |
| Whether voluntary revision of the challenged policy by the State defeats prevailing-party status (Buckhannon issue) | Plaintiffs contend Buckhannon doesn’t apply where court-ordered relief compelled the change; relief here was judicially enforceable, not merely voluntary cessation | Governor argues Buckhannon bars fees when a defendant voluntarily changes its conduct | The court held Buckhannon does not bar fees here because plaintiffs obtained a court-ordered, enforceable injunction that produced the change |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in the amount of fees awarded (hours, rates, post-injunction billing) | Plaintiffs’ counsel billed reasonable hours/rates; district court thoroughly reviewed and adjusted as appropriate | Governor contends hours were excessive, rates too high, and some work was compensable only in part | The court found no abuse of discretion: the district court exercised its judgment, considered objections, and gave adequate reasons for the award |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (rejecting the "catalyst" theory for fee awards)
- Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, 977 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 2020) (Sixth Circuit preliminary injunction finding Free Exercise violation for restrictions on religious services)
- McQueary v. Conway, 614 F.3d 591 (6th Cir. 2010) (developing contextual, case-specific inquiry for prevailing-party status when cases moot)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (standard for reasonable attorney's fees and district court discretion)
- Miller v. Caudill, 936 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2019) (preliminary injunction may materially alter legal relations and justify fees)
- Tenn. State Conf. of NAACP v. Hargett, 53 F.4th 406 (6th Cir. 2022) (preliminary injunctions can be "final in all but name" for fee purposes)
- Tex. State Tchrs. Ass’n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782 (1989) (material alteration of the legal relationship is a touchstone for prevailing-party status)
- Sole v. Wyner, 551 U.S. 74 (2007) (temporary or status-quo-preserving injunctions may not support fee awards)
- Planned Parenthood Sw. Ohio Region v. DeWine, 931 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (preliminary-injunction analysis tied to likelihood of success on the merits)
- Tandon v. Newsom, 141 S. Ct. 1294 (2021) (per curiam) (Supreme Court endorsement of careful scrutiny where restrictions burden religious exercise)