NCLA urges the Supreme Court to better align its prevailing party precedent with the generally acknowledged understanding that civil rights litigation is designed to impact the law, an understanding the high court shares in other contexts. When people obtain a precedential opinion that changes the law in their favor, they “prevail” in every sense of that concept—and in the way that matters most to all parties. The Supreme Court should thus adopt a bright-line rule holding that a party who wins relief at a preliminary stage of litigation “prevails” if it obtains an opinion that materially alters the law in its favor.

NCLA rarely seeks relief that would have no impact beyond benefiting a particular plaintiff. More critically, the desire to improve the law is every bit as much of their clients’ litigation goal as obtaining money or some other specific benefit, and it is no less tangible. This case matters to NCLA because acknowledging that our clients prevail when they alter legal doctrine in a way that can impact future cases would help ensure funding to continue to protect civil rights, and also because attorney-fee awards can positively influence the government’s behavior.