## Facts

- Ricky D. Fox ran for chief of police in Vinton, Louisiana, opposing incumbent Billy Ray Vice.
- Fox alleged Vice used election “dirty tricks,” including an anonymous threat letter, arranging false public accusations and a criminal complaint, and leaking the complaint to the press.
- Fox won the election; Vice was later convicted in state court of criminal extortion based on his campaign conduct.
- Fox sued Vice and the Town of Vinton asserting both state-law tort claims and federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The case was removed to federal court based on the § 1983 claims.
- After discovery, Fox conceded his federal claims lacked merit; the district court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and remanded the state claims.
- Vice sought attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for defending against the federal claims, submitting billing records that did not separate federal-claim work from state-claim work.

## Issues

1. Whether a prevailing defendant in a suit containing both frivolous federal civil-rights claims and nonfrivolous state-law claims may recover attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
2. If fees are available, whether the award must be limited to fees the defendant would not have incurred but for the frivolous federal claims, rather than all work that was “useful” against those claims.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the fee award and remanded.
- A prevailing defendant may recover reasonable fees under § 1988 in a mixed-claim case, but only for costs that would not have been incurred but for the frivolous claims.
- The lower courts erred by approving a broad award based on the usefulness of work and the relatedness of claims without separating fees attributable solely to the frivolous federal claims.
- Trial courts have discretion to allocate fees using practical methods and need only reach “rough justice,” not accounting-level precision.

## Legal Principles

- A prevailing defendant may obtain § 1988 fees only when the plaintiff’s civil-rights claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.
- In a case containing both frivolous and nonfrivolous claims, recoverable fees are limited by “but-for” causation: the defendant may recover only those fees that would not have been incurred absent the frivolous claim.
- Fees are not recoverable for work that would have been performed anyway to defend nonfrivolous claims, even if that work also helped defeat the frivolous claim.
- Overlap between claims requires caution in shifting fees; relatedness does not justify shifting all fees.
- District courts may use estimates, percentage reductions, and other approximations to exclude nonrecoverable overlapping work so long as they attempt to isolate costs caused solely by the frivolous claim.

## Conclusion

The Court held that § 1988 permits a prevailing defendant to recover attorney’s fees in a mixed-claim suit only to the extent the defendant proves the fees were incurred solely because a frivolous civil-rights claim was included, and it required the lower court to recalculate the award under that “but-for” standard.


Fox v. Vice, 131 S. Ct. 2205 (2011)