## Facts

- An artist-activist sought to stage an antiwar display in a Florida state park involving nude participants arranged in a peace sign.
- State officials informed her the event would be allowed only if participants complied with a park dress requirement mandating at least a thong (and a bikini top for women).
- She sued state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a First Amendment violation and seeking (1) emergency preliminary relief for the upcoming event and (2) a permanent injunction against future enforcement as to similar expressive activity.
- After an expedited hearing, the district court issued a preliminary injunction allowing the event to proceed under conditions intended to address the State’s asserted public concerns.
- The event occurred; participants assembled into the peace symbol outside a barrier and later entered the water nude.
- After discovery and cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court entered final judgment for the state officials, denied permanent injunctive relief, and upheld enforcement of the dress rule.
- Despite losing on the merits, the plaintiff sought attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 based on having obtained the preliminary injunction.
- The district court awarded fees and the court of appeals affirmed, treating the preliminary injunction as sufficient success.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff who obtains a preliminary injunction but is later denied permanent relief after final adjudication on the merits is a “prevailing party” eligible for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
2. Whether interim relief that is superseded by a final merits judgment can constitute the “material alteration” in the parties’ legal relationship required for prevailing-party status.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed.
- The Court held the plaintiff was not a “prevailing party” under § 1988 because she ultimately lost on the merits.
- A preliminary injunction that is later undone by the final decision in the same case does not support an award of attorney’s fees.
- The Court left open whether preliminary relief might support prevailing-party status when there is no final merits decision (e.g., if the case becomes moot after preliminary relief).

## Legal Principles

- “Prevailing party” status under § 1988 requires a judicially sanctioned, material alteration of the legal relationship between the parties that is enduring.
- Preliminary injunctive relief is typically provisional; when a final merits judgment supersedes it and rejects the plaintiff’s claim, the interim relief is not an enduring change.
- A plaintiff who secures only temporary relief and then loses on the merits cannot recover § 1988 attorney’s fees based solely on that temporary relief.

## Conclusion

A preliminary injunction that permits short-term conduct but is later displaced by a final judgment against the plaintiff does not make the plaintiff a prevailing party under § 1988, so attorney’s fees are unavailable in that circumstance.


Sole v. Wyner, 551 U.S. 74 (2007)