## Facts

- A class of approximately 3,000 children in Georgia’s foster-care system sued state officials, alleging serious system deficiencies violating federal and state rights.
- The parties resolved the merits through a consent decree; the remaining dispute concerned attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
- Plaintiffs sought more than $14 million in fees and expenses, including a lodestar component and a large upward enhancement based on asserted “superb” work and “exceptional” results.
- The district court found the requested hourly rates reasonable but reduced billed hours as excessive or vague, producing an adjusted lodestar of about $6 million.
- The district court then increased the lodestar by 75% (about $4.5 million), awarding roughly $10.5 million total, citing quality of representation and results.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the enhancement.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may enhance a § 1988 fee award above the lodestar based on superior attorney performance and exceptional results.
2. What standard and evidentiary showing are required to justify any enhancement beyond the lodestar.
3. Whether the 75% enhancement here was permissible where the stated reasons largely overlapped with factors already reflected in the lodestar.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in a 5–4 decision authored by Justice Alito.
- The Court held that lodestar enhancements are permissible only in rare, extraordinary circumstances.
- The Court concluded the district court did not provide an adequate, specific justification for a 75% enhancement and relied on considerations generally subsumed within the lodestar.
- The Court held the Eleventh Circuit erred in affirming the enhanced award.

## Legal Principles

- The lodestar (reasonable hours × reasonable rate) carries a strong presumption of reasonableness in federal fee-shifting cases, including § 1988.
- An enhancement is allowed only in rare cases where the lodestar does not adequately account for a factor that may properly be considered in setting a reasonable fee.
- Factors generally reflected in the lodestar—such as attorney skill, quality, and case complexity as captured by prevailing market rates—cannot ordinarily justify an additional increase because doing so risks double-counting.
- The party seeking an enhancement bears the burden to identify a lodestar-omitted factor and prove with specific evidence that an increase is necessary.
- Any enhancement must be supported by a reasonably specific explanation that ties the amount of the increase to non-duplicative evidence, permitting meaningful appellate review.

## Conclusion

The Court reaffirmed the lodestar as the primary method for § 1988 fee awards and limited upward adjustments to exceptional situations supported by specific, non-overlapping evidence showing that the lodestar undercompensates; the unexplained 75% enhancement based largely on generalized assessments of quality and results could not stand.


Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (2010)