Justices Limit Ability of Rights Attorneys to Collect Fees

In its first signed opinion of the fall term, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that civil rights attorneys may recover fees only after court fights, not after prevailing in an administrative proceeding.

By a 6-3 margin, the high court concluded that the “plain language” of the 1976 federal law authorizing attorneys fees in civil rights cases appeared to limit the awards to “any action or proceeding” before a court.

The dissenters said that the ruling will have the effect of encouraging more needless lawsuits.

The case grew out of the efforts of a group in Durham, N.C., to halt a proposed federal highway that would have cut through mostly black neighborhoods. The attorneys representing the black families negotiated with federal and state officials over five years and succeeded in getting the highway rerouted.

‘Reasonable Attorney’s Fee’

After the rerouting plan was made final, the attorneys sought an award under the federal law which “allow(s) the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee.” A district court in 1984 dismissed the plea, but the next year an appeals court ruled in favor of the attorneys.

In reversing that ruling in the case (North Carolina Department of Transportation vs. Crest Street Community Council, 85-767), the Supreme Court said that it saw no justification for extending the award of attorneys fees to other types of legal efforts.

In dissent, Associate Justice William J. Brennan Jr. said that the decision will place a “pointless burden” on federal courts as attorneys move to file suits rather than settle disputes through other means. Also dissenting were Associate Justices Thurgood Marshall and Harry A. Blackmun.

First Opinion by Scalia

Since Congress first enacted the law authorizing attorneys fees to prevailing parties in civil rights cases, attorneys and courts repeatedly have litigated over the limits of that law. In June on a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that an award to attorneys may be far greater than the amount won for civil rights plaintiffs.

In a second opinion released Tuesday and the first written by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, the high court said unanimously that U.S. citizens working in the Panama Canal zone must pay U.S. income taxes. The 1977 treaty turning over rights to the canal to Panama included a clause that said these Americans “shall be exempt from any taxes, fees or other charges on income” while working there. But the justices concluded that this clause referred to taxes and fees levied by Panama, not U.S. taxes (O’Connor vs United States, 85-558).

The high court began hearing one-hour oral arguments last month in about 150 cases that will be decided through written opinions. Most of these rulings will not be issued until late spring or early summer.