The Lawletter Vol. 50 No. 1

Robert Westendorf—Senior Attorney

        In Virginia, a statute mandated that drivers lose their licenses when fines or penalties that they owed were not paid. Lackey v. Stinnie, 145 S. Ct. 659, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 866, at *5-6 (Feb. 25, 2025). Drivers whose licenses had been suspended sued and alleged violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Id. at *6. After the district court granted a preliminary injunction against the law, the case was stayed and later dismissed because the Virginia legislature repealed the law. Id.

       The drivers asserted they were entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), which allows prevailing parties in civil rights cases to receive attorney’s fees. Id. The en banc Fourth Circuit determined that the drivers were entitled to attorney’s fees. Id. at *7. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Fourth Circuit by a 7-2 vote. Id. at *8. Chief Justice Roberts started the majority opinion by noting that the general rule in America is that the prevailing party is not entitled to collect attorney’s fees from the loser, and that federal courts can depart from this rule only when there is statutory authorization to do so. Id. at *8-9. At the time that Section 1988 was adopted, “prevailing party” is the party who ultimately prevails at the end of the lawsuit. Id. at *9-10. But preliminary injunctions “do not conclusively resolve legal disputes. In awarding preliminary injunctions, courts determine if a plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits—along with the risk of irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest.” Id. at *10. The purpose of preliminary injunctions is to preserve the positions of the parties until a trial and often depends as much on the equities of the case as on the legal issues that are involved. Id. A preliminary injunction has a temporary nature because courts can reach a different conclusion at the permanent injunction stage. Id. at *11. Since preliminary injunctions do not “conclusively resolve the rights of parties on the merits, they do not confer prevailing party status.” Id. at *11.

Lawletter Vol  48 No. 3

SCOTUS: Government Cannot Sell House to Recover Unpaid Taxes and Keep the Excess

 Robert Westendorf—Research Attorney

      Ninety-four-year-old Geraldine Tyler lived in a condominium for more than a decade before moving to a senior community in 2010. Tyler v. Hennepin County, 143 S. Ct. 1369, 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2201, at *5-6 (May 25, 2023). Nobody paid the property taxes on the condo, and by 2015, $15,000 in unpaid taxes and penalties was owed. 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2201, at *6. Hennepin County seized the property and sold it for $40,000, thus extinguishing the $15,000 debt. If this had happened in one of 36 states, Tyler would have gotten the excess $25,000 back. Id. at *14. However, when property is sold due to the failure to pay taxes in Minnesota, proceeds in excess of the tax debt remain with the county. Id. at *5.

      Ms. Tyler brought suit, alleging violations of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at *6. The lower courts ruled against Ms. Tyler. The Supreme Court reversed. Id. at *6-22. Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice Roberts determined that Ms. Tyler had standing. Id. at *8. The Court then stated that the question was whether the $25,000 is “property under the Takings Clause, protected from uncompensated appropriation by the State.” Id. at *9. In determining what is property, the Court would look to traditional property law principles, historical practice, and the Court’s precedents. Id.