Get 40% Off
🚨 Volatile Markets? Find Hidden Gems for Serious OutperformanceFind Stocks Now

U.S. court denies $2 million legal fees to conservatives in voting rights case

Published 09/01/2015, 11:21 AM
Updated 09/01/2015, 11:27 AM
U.S. court denies $2 million legal fees to conservatives in voting rights case

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday denied $2 million in legal fees sought from the federal government by conservative lawyers who persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 to strike down a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a lower court's decision to reject the fee request, which was made to the government by lawyers representing Shelby County, Alabama.

The three-judge panel said the fees provision applies only when the case advances the goals Congress wanted to promote. As the aim of the challenge was to narrow the scope of the law, not to enforce individual voting rights, no legal fees are available, the court found.

"Shelby County's lawsuit neither advanced Congress's purpose nor performed some service Congress needed help to accomplish. It defies common sense and ignores the structure and history of the act to think otherwise," Judge Thomas Griffith wrote on behalf of the court.

In the United States, each side in a lawsuit pays its own attorneys' fees, but federal law allows individuals who win certain civil rights cases against the government to be reimbursed for their lawyers' fees.

Over the years in voting rights disputes, that has allowed advocates for black and Hispanic voters who successfully challenged legislative redistricting maps or polling practices as discriminatory to recoup fees.

Shelby County won a 5-4 Supreme Court decision in 2013 that curtailed a provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act requiring nine states, mainly in the South, to obtain federal approval before changing election rules.

3rd party Ad. Not an offer or recommendation by Investing.com. See disclosure here or remove ads .

Congress adopted the provision of the voting rights law in question to make sure that states with a history of discrimination were not instituting policies that would hurt black, Hispanic or other minority voters. Writing for the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts deemed the provision outdated and an unconstitutional burden on the covered states.

After that 2013 decision, members of the Shelby County legal team led by Washington lawyer Bert Rein argued that they should qualify for fees because they vindicated constitutional equality guarantees.

The case is Shelby County v. Lynch, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 14-5138.

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.