Northcross v. Board of Education of Memphis City Schools 8212 1164
| Decision Date | 04 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72,72 |
| Citation | 93 S.Ct. 2201,37 L.Ed.2d 48,412 U.S. 427 |
| Parties | Deborah A. NORTHCROSS et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the MEMPHIS CITY SCHOOLS et al. —1164 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This case presents the question of the propriety, under § 718 of the Emergency School Aid Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 369, 20 U.S.C. § 1617, of a denial of attorneys' fees to the successful plaintiffs in this litigation aimed at desegregating the public schools of Memphis, Tennessee. Section 718, which became effective on July 1, 1972, provides that '(u)pon the entry of a final order by a court of the United States against a local educational agency, a State (or any agency thereof), or the United States (or any agency thereof),' in any action seeking to redress illegal or unconstitutional discrimination with respect to 'elementary and secondary education, the court, in its discretion, upon a finding that the proceedings were necessary to bring about compliance, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.' In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied petitioners' motion for an award of attorneys' fees. The Court of Appeals did not, however, state reasons for the denial and it is therefore not possible for this Court to determine whether the Court of Appeals applied the proper standard in reaching this result.1
Section 718 tracks the wording of § 204(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 244, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a—3(b), which provides that, in an action seeking to enforce Title II of that Act, 'the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs . . ..' In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968), we held that, under § 204(b), 'one who succeeds in obtaining an injunction under that Title should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.' Id., at 402, 88 S.Ct., at 966. The similarity of language in § 718 and § 204(b) is, of course, a strong indication that the two statutes should be interpreted pari passu. Moreover, 'the two provisions share a common raison d'e tre. The plaintiffs in school cases are 'private attorneys general' vindicating national policy in the same sense as are plaintiffs in Title II actions. The enactment of both provisions was for the same purpose—'to encourage individuals injured by racial discrimination to seek judicial relief . . .." Johnson v. Combs, 471 F.2d 84, 86 (CA5 1972), quoting Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., supra, 390 U.S., at 402, 88 S.Ct., at 966. We therefore conclude that, as with § 204(b), if other requirements of § 718 are satisfied, the successful plaintiff 'should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.' 390 U.S., at 402, 88 S.Ct., at 966. Since it is impossible for us to determine whether the Court of Appeals applied this standard and, if so, whether it did so correctly, we grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment below insofar as it relates to the denial of attorneys' fees, and remand to the Court of Appeals for further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McREADY v. DEPT. OF CONSUMER & REG. AFF.
...Company v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 415, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 2370, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975); Northcross v. Board of Education of the Memphis City Schools, 412 U.S. 427, 428, 93 S.Ct. 2201, 2202, 37 L.Ed.2d 48 (1973). In light of both that consideration and Kay's heavy reliance upon the holding of Falco......
-
AMERICAN CANOE ASS'N, INC. v. City of Louisa
...Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 559, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986) (citing Northcross v. Bd. of Educ. of Memphis City Sch., 412 U.S. 427, 428, 93 S.Ct. 2201, 37 L.Ed.2d 48 (1973)). In the only case where the Sixth Circuit considered an award under § 1365(d), it too followed the......
-
Hengle v. Asner
...claims, while § 1964(c) provides an additional, narrower right to recovery for private plaintiffs. See Northcross v. Bd of Educ. , 412 U.S. 427, 428, 93 S.Ct. 2201, 37 L.Ed.2d 48 (1973) (noting that similarity of language between two statutory provisions "is, of course, a strong indication ......
-
Wallace v. House
...718 of the Emergency School Aid Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 235, by the United States Supreme Court in Northcross v. Board of Education, 412 U.S. 427, 93 S.Ct. 2201, 37 L. Ed.2d 48 (1973). 59. In the absence of statutes, American federal courts always have had equitable powers to award attorney's......
-
Case summaries.
...E.g., Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 434 U.S. 412, 417 (1978) (Title VII); Northcross v. Bd, of Educ., 412 U.S. 427, 428 (1973) (Emergency School Aid Act, 20 U.S.C. [section] 1617); Smith v. CMTA-IAM Pension Trust, 746 F.2d 587, 589 (9th Cir. 1984) (Emplo......
-
Life After Gross: Creating a New Center for Disparate Treatment Proof Structures
...Prenkert, Bizarro Statutory Stare Decisis , 28 B ERKELEY J. EMP. & LAB. L. 217, 234–35 (2007). 112. Northcross v. Memphis Bd. of Educ., 412 U.S. 427, 428 (1973). 113 . Gross , 129 S. Ct. at 2358 (Stevens, J., dissenting). 114 . Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 241 (1989). 115 . Ka......
-
THE REMAND POWER AND THE SUPREME COURT'S ROLE.
...appellate court to discuss every assignment of error, even if ruling on some made others irrelevant). Compare Northcross v. Bd. of Educ, 412 U.S. 427, 428-29 (1973) (per curiam) (remanding for explanation of summary decision), with TEX. R. APR P. 47.1 (requiring the courts of appeals to dec......
-
The Weaponization of Attorney's Fees in an Age of Constitutional Warfare.
...402 (1968) (per curiam) (explaining the fee-shifting approach of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964); Northcross v. Bd. of Educ, 412 U.S. 427, 428-29 (1973) (per curiam) (holding that the fee-shifting approach of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also applies to cases brought u......