Make the Road New York v. Pompeo
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-11633
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Make the Road New York v. Blinken: Judge Daniels recommitted the case for further fee analysis after the Supreme Court rules in Lackey.
The ruling affects the plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees and the defendants’ challenge to that request. It also leaves unresolved whether the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction makes them eligible for fees and preserves the reduction recommended for Catholic Charities Community Services (Archdiocese of New York).
What happened
In Make the Road New York v. Blinken, the plaintiffs sought $418,275.09 in attorney fees after obtaining a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking changes to the government’s “public charge” rules. A magistrate judge recommended awarding $376,447.58, including a reduction because Catholic Charities Community Services was ineligible for fees.
The defendants objected because the Supreme Court was considering whether obtaining only a preliminary injunction makes a party eligible for attorney fees. The Supreme Court’s decision in Lackey could affect whether these plaintiffs qualify as parties who prevailed under the fee statute.
Judge Daniels did not decide whether to award the fees. He recommitted the case to Magistrate Judge Wang for further analysis after the Supreme Court decides Lackey.
The detailed version
- Make the Road New York v. Pompeo · No. 1:19-cv-11633
- George Daniels
- Sept. 30, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs challenged the defendants’ 2018 and 2019 revisions to the “public charge” framework. They obtained a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking two rule revisions and a presidential proclamation that created new criteria for deciding whether a noncitizen seeking entry to the United States or adjustment of status was likely to become a public charge.
The plaintiffs then requested $418,275.09 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that permits qualifying parties to recover attorney fees in certain cases against the government. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang recommended awarding $376,447.58. The recommendation included a 10% reduction because Catholic Charities Community Services (Archdiocese of New York) was ineligible to collect fees. Judge Wang concluded that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties in the entire action and that the five individual plaintiffs met the law’s eligibility requirements.
Defendants’ Objections
The defendants objected to the recommendation based on the Supreme Court’s pending case, Lackey v. Stinnie. That case concerned whether a plaintiff who obtains only a preliminary injunction can be a “prevailing party” entitled to attorney fees. The Supreme Court’s questions included whether a party must obtain a ruling conclusively deciding the merits in its favor and whether the legal relationship between the parties must be changed on an enduring basis by a judicial act.
Under then-current Second Circuit law, a party could be considered prevailing when a court ordered a change in the legal relationship between the parties or materially altered that relationship. In cases involving an injunction or stay, the court also considered whether the injunction was based on an assessment of the merits. The defendants argued that an affirmative Supreme Court answer to either question in Lackey could mean that the plaintiffs were not entitled to fees.
Ruling
Judge Daniels recommitted the case to Magistrate Judge Wang for further analysis after the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Lackey. The court did not adopt the recommended fee award, enter a fee award, or finally decide the plaintiffs’ eligibility for attorney fees in this opinion. The conclusion states that the case was recommitted for further analysis consistent with the opinion.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.