South Dakota ballot group loses attorney fees because of new U.S. Supreme Court precedent
A South Dakota ballot question committee and its lawyer are among the first victims of a new U.S. Supreme Court precedent that lessens the likelihood of recovering attorney fees when suing the government for civil rights violations.
The high court's decision in a separate case recently caused Dakotans for Health and its attorney, Jim Leach, to drop their effort to recover attorney fees in a lawsuit against Lawrence County.
Leach and Dakotans for Health won a temporary restraining order last year against the county. The order blocked the county from restricting petition circulators to a designated area away from public sidewalks surrounding the courthouse complex in Deadwood. The circulators were gathering signatures for two measures — one that would have restored abortion rights, and one that sought to eliminate the state sales taxes on groceries. Both measures made it onto statewide ballots but were rejected by voters in November.
Need to get in touch?
Have a news tip?
CONTACT US
The county claimed its policy restricting circulators preserved public safety and protected the right of local citizens to conduct county business without disruption, but a federal judge ruled the policy 'burdened substantially more speech than necessary.'
The judge also ordered the county to pay $19,238.90 in attorney fees and costs, but the county filed an appeal to resist paying the money. Meanwhile, in February, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Lackey v. Stinnie.
The Supreme Court ruled that when civil rights plaintiffs win a preliminary injunction and the government relents without the need for a permanent injunction, the plaintiffs are not 'prevailing parties' and are not eligible for court-awarded attorney fees.
In the Lawrence County case, the county relented and changed its policy, resulting in a voluntary dismissal of the case. Therefore, wrote Leach in a March motion to the appeals court, 'under Lackey v. Stinnie, Dakotans for Health loses this appeal. So there is no need for anyone to spend any more time on this case.' A judge finalized the matter by dismissing the attorney fees and costs last week.
Rick Weiland, chairman of Dakotans for Health, said this week that the Lackey v. Stinnie ruling guts the incentive for lawyers to represent clients suing to protect their civil rights.
'The Supreme Court is attacking the people who go after the government for when it, basically, goes after its own citizens — things like First Amendment violations, which is what we showed the government did,' Weiland said.
Dakotans for Health also settled with Minnehaha County in a similar lawsuit last year, and that county has paid $54,815.15 in attorney fees and costs.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
25 minutes ago
Judges weigh preclearance requirement for Alabama congressional plans
Federal judges on Tuesday sharply questioned lawyers on a request to make Alabama subject again to the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act after courts ruled the state intentionally diluted the voting strength of Black residents. Black voters and civil rights organizations, who brought a lawsuit that gave Alabama a new congressional map, are asking a three-judge panel to require any new congressional plans drawn in the next seven years go through federal review. The Alabama attorney general and the U.S. Department of Justice oppose the request. The Voting Rights Act for decades required states with a history of discrimination — including many in the South — to get federal approval before changing the way they hold elections. But the requirement of preclearance effectively went away in 2013 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the provision determining which states are covered was outdated and unconstitutional. The request is seeking to trigger the 'bail-in' provision of the Voting Rights Act. Alternatively, plaintiffs are asking the court to retain jurisdiction so any new plans can be addressed. Deuel Ross, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said Alabama demonstrated a pattern of resistance to drawing a congressional map that was fair to Black voters. He said the preclearance is needed to ensure Alabama doesn't 'backslide' the next time maps are drawn. 'There is no question what happened in this case extraordinary,' Ross told the panel. He pointed to the history of the case, including that lawmakers in 2023 'intentionally defied' a court order to draw a second majority-Black district or something close to it. Judges stepped in to select a new map for the state that was used in the 2024 elections. Alabama Solicitor General Edmund LaCour Jr. argued to the court that preclearance is an extraordinary remedy that is only appropriate after multiple violations. 'That test is not satisfied here,' LaCour told the panel. During the hearing, the judges asked if there were less stringent remedies than preclearance. However, U.S. District Judge Terry Moorer told LaCour said the best way to predict what someone will do is to 'look at what they have been doing.' He asked if the state expected to be 'divorced' from its history and noted the actions of state lawmakers 'Hasn't the state shown us who they are?' Moorer told LaCour. LaCour responded that the situation is different than when Congress created preclearance as part of the 1965 voting law. 'An attempt to persuade a court is far different than the attempt to evade a court that was happening in the 1950s and 1960s,' LaCour said. The same three-judge panel in May permanently blocked Alabama from using the state-drawn map that they said flouted their directive to draw a plan that was fair to Black voters. The state is appealing that decision.
Washington Post
25 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Lawyers for Epstein's former girlfriend say she's open to interview with Congress, if given immunity
WASHINGTON — Ghislaine Maxwell , the imprisoned former girlfriend of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein , is open to answering questions from Congress — but only if she is granted immunity from future prosecution for her testimony, her lawyers said Tuesday. A spokeswoman for the committee that wants to interview her responded with a terse statement saying it would not consider offering her immunity. Maxwell's lawyers also asked that they be provided with any questions in advance and that any interview with her be scheduled after her petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to take up her case has been resolved. The conditions were laid out in a letter sent by Maxwell's attorneys to Rep. James Comer, the Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee who last week issued a subpoena for her deposition at the Florida prison where she is serving a 20-year-prison sentence on a conviction of conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse underage girls. The request to interview her is part of a frenzied, renewed interest in the Epstein saga following the Justice Department's July statement that it would not be releasing any additional records from the investigation, an abrupt announcement that stunned online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of President Donald Trump's base who had been hoping to find proof of a government coverup. Since then, the Trump administration has sought to present itself as promoting transparency, with the department urging courts to unseal grand jury transcripts from the sex-trafficking investigation and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche interviewing Maxwell over the course of two days at a Florida courthouse last week. In a letter Tuesday, Maxwell's attorneys said that though their initial instinct was for Maxwell to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, they are open to having her cooperate provided that lawmakers satisfy their request for immunity and other conditions. But the Oversight Committee seemed to reject that offer outright. 'The Oversight Committee will respond to Ms. Maxwell's attorney soon, but it will not consider granting congressional immunity for her testimony,' a spokesperson said. Separately, Maxwell's attorneys have urged the Supreme Court to review her conviction, saying she dd not receive a fair trial. They also say that one way she would testify 'openly and honestly, in public,' is in the event of a pardon by Trump, who has told reporters that such a move is within his rights but that he has not been not asked to make it. 'She welcomes the opportunity to share the truth and to dispel the many misconceptions and misstatements that have plagued this case from the beginning,' he said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Ghislaine Maxwell has offered to testify to Congress about Epstein case but with major conditions: report
Ghislaine Maxwell has offered to testify before Congress about the case of her accomplice Jeffrey Epstein but with major conditions, her attorneys said. Lawyers for the convicted sex trafficker and former girlfriend of the late convicted pedophile have sent her demands to the House Oversight Committee, CNN first reported. The former British socialite, who is appealing to the Supreme Court to overturn her conviction, has found herself back in the spotlight as the Epstein files scandal continues to plague the White House. Maxwell was subpoenaed to testify next month by House Oversight Chair James Comer. Her attorneys said in the letter Tuesday that she would cooperate 'if a fair and safe path forward can be established.' Maxwell's demands reportedly include a grant of formal immunity, and any interview would need to take place away from the correctional facility where she is currently serving her 20-year sentence. If her demands are not met, Maxwell 'will have no choice but to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights,' her attorneys wrote in the letter, seen by The Independent. The letter also said Maxwell would be willing to testify 'openly and honestly' in public if she received clemency from President Donald Trump. Trump acknowledged Monday that he has the power to pardon Maxwell, but didn't say he would. 'Well, I'm allowed to give her a pardon, but I — nobody's approached me with it,' the president said. 'Nobody's asked me about it.' 'Of course, in the alternative, if Ms. Maxwell were to receive clemency, she would be willing—and eager—to testify openly and honestly, in public, before Congress in Washington, D.C.,' her attorneys said. 'She welcomes the opportunity to share the truth and to dispel the many misconceptions and misstatements that have plagued this case from the beginning.' Her other demands include receiving the committee's questions in advance and any appearance before them take place after the resolution of her Supreme Court appeal. The idea of granting Maxwell immunity was swiftly rejected by the Oversight Committee. 'The Oversight Committee will respond to Ms. Maxwell's attorney soon, but it will not consider granting congressional immunity for her testimony,' a spokeswoman told CNN. It comes a day after Maxwell filed an appeal with the Supreme Court in the hope of overturning her conviction of sexually abusing and grooming underage girls and young women for years with Epstein. Maxwell argues that she was unlawfully prosecuted and last week met with a senior Justice Department officials to answer questions about the case. Her lawyer says Maxwell answered questions about 'about 100 different people' with potential ties to the Epstein ring.
