Latest news with #Stinnie
The Hill
08-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
The Supreme Court made your rights harder to defend — Congress must now step up
From free speech rights and desegregation to gun rights and religious freedoms, civil rights litigation has long been a cornerstone of personal liberty in America. But in February, the Supreme Court issued an opinion that will make it harder for us as Americans to vindicate our constitutional rights when the government violates them. In Lackey v. Stinnie, a group of Virginia drivers challenged a state law that punished people for failing to pay court fees by automatically suspending their driver's licenses. The plaintiffs secured a preliminary injunction — a court order issued early in a case to prevent potential harm while it is litigated in full — allowing them to keep their licenses. Virginia did not appeal that ruling, and before the case went to trial, the legislature changed the law and reinstated any licenses that had been suspended under it. In cases alleging violations of constitutional rights, a federal statute preempts the general rule that litigants pay their own fees and costs by allowing 'prevailing' parties to recover attorney's fees from the government actor who violated their rights. But in this case, the federal district court held the drivers had not in fact 'prevailed' given that the case did not progress to a final conclusion, making them ineligible to recover attorney's fees. This flew in the face of what courts and litigators had understood the law to be for decades. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court to determine what 'prevailing' meant in federal law and whether the drivers were entitled to reimbursement. The court, to the disappointment of advocates for civil rights and liberties, held that plaintiffs who do not obtain a final judgment on the merits do not qualify as 'prevailing' even if, as with the Virginia drivers, they prevail in getting the government to change the law. Unlike corporate litigation, civil rights cases rarely involve large financial recoveries. In any event, plaintiffs often seek changes to laws or policies rather than monetary gain. Yet these are vital cases, not just for the individuals involved but for the communities they represent, even if they rarely provide enough financial incentive to make private representation feasible — unless attorneys receive compensation after winning the case. Congress intended to encourage civil rights litigation by tying fee awards to success, whether through final judgments or preliminary relief. The House Judiciary Committee report on the legislation enacting the attorney's fees provision noted, 'a defendant might voluntarily cease the unlawful practice. A court should still award fees even though it might conclude … that no formal relief, such as an injunction, is needed.' Despite this clear evidence of congressional intent, the court held otherwise. Importantly, as the court pointed out, Congress has the power to clarify in the statute that attorney's fees can be awarded before a final judgement on the merits. Congress must do so. The breadth of amicus briefs submitted in this case — from the ACLU to the Alliance Defending Freedom to the Firearms Policy Coalition — demonstrates that across the ideological spectrum, organizations recognize the critical role awarding attorney's fees plays in civil rights litigation. As FIRE noted in its amicus brief to the Supreme Court, 'Withholding attorney's fees from victims of these First Amendment violations would be devastating — not just for them individually, but for access to justice more broadly.' Congress must enact a simple, clarifying change that will have broad support and ensure all Americans can vindicate their constitutional rights. Justice isn't free, but we can ensure it remains accessible to all. Greg Y. Gonzalez is legislative counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
South Dakota ballot group loses attorney fees because of new U.S. Supreme Court precedent
Rick Weiland of Dakotans for Health speaks to the press on Feb. 7, 2024, at the South Dakota Capitol in Pierre about an initiated constitutional amendment to re-establish abortion rights in the state constitution. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight) A South Dakota ballot question committee and its lawyer are among the first victims of a new U.S. Supreme Court precedent that lessens the likelihood of recovering attorney fees when suing the government for civil rights violations. The high court's decision in a separate case recently caused Dakotans for Health and its attorney, Jim Leach, to drop their effort to recover attorney fees in a lawsuit against Lawrence County. Leach and Dakotans for Health won a temporary restraining order last year against the county. The order blocked the county from restricting petition circulators to a designated area away from public sidewalks surrounding the courthouse complex in Deadwood. The circulators were gathering signatures for two measures — one that would have restored abortion rights, and one that sought to eliminate the state sales taxes on groceries. Both measures made it onto statewide ballots but were rejected by voters in November. Need to get in touch? Have a news tip? CONTACT US The county claimed its policy restricting circulators preserved public safety and protected the right of local citizens to conduct county business without disruption, but a federal judge ruled the policy 'burdened substantially more speech than necessary.' The judge also ordered the county to pay $19,238.90 in attorney fees and costs, but the county filed an appeal to resist paying the money. Meanwhile, in February, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Lackey v. Stinnie. The Supreme Court ruled that when civil rights plaintiffs win a preliminary injunction and the government relents without the need for a permanent injunction, the plaintiffs are not 'prevailing parties' and are not eligible for court-awarded attorney fees. In the Lawrence County case, the county relented and changed its policy, resulting in a voluntary dismissal of the case. Therefore, wrote Leach in a March motion to the appeals court, 'under Lackey v. Stinnie, Dakotans for Health loses this appeal. So there is no need for anyone to spend any more time on this case.' A judge finalized the matter by dismissing the attorney fees and costs last week. Rick Weiland, chairman of Dakotans for Health, said this week that the Lackey v. Stinnie ruling guts the incentive for lawyers to represent clients suing to protect their civil rights. 'The Supreme Court is attacking the people who go after the government for when it, basically, goes after its own citizens — things like First Amendment violations, which is what we showed the government did,' Weiland said. Dakotans for Health also settled with Minnehaha County in a similar lawsuit last year, and that county has paid $54,815.15 in attorney fees and costs. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
New York Giants re-signing offensive lineman Aaron Stinnie
The New York Giants have agreed to terms with veteran guard Aaron Stinnie, who will return to East Rutherford for a second season. ESPN's Jeremy Fowler was the first to report the news. #Giants continue to add offensive line depth, agreeing to terms with veteran guard Aaron Stinnie on a one-year deal, per source. Stinnie, a seven-year vet, played 16 games with three starts in New York last season. — Jeremy Fowler (@JFowlerESPN) March 13, 2025 Stinnie, 31, signed with the Tennessee Titans as a rookie free agent out of James Madison in 2018. He spent one-plus season with the team before joining the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in 2019 (claimed off waivers), where he picked up a Super Bowl LV championship. After three-plus seasons with the Bucs, Stinnie signed a free agent deal with the Giants last March. Stinnie has appeared in 47 career games with 15 starts -- almost all of that time spent at left guard. However, he did see time at right guard earlier in his career. In 2024, Stinnie earned an overall grade of 47.9 from Pro Football Focus, including a 56.4 pass blocking grade, and a 50.5 run blocking grade. This article originally appeared on Giants Wire: Giants re-signing offensive lineman Aaron Stinnie
USA Today
14-03-2025
- Sport
- USA Today
New York Giants re-signing offensive lineman Aaron Stinnie
New York Giants re-signing offensive lineman Aaron Stinnie #Giants continue to add offensive line depth, agreeing to terms with veteran guard Aaron Stinnie on a one-year deal, per source. Stinnie, a seven-year vet, played 16 games with three starts in New York last season. — Jeremy Fowler (@JFowlerESPN) March 13, 2025 The New York Giants have agreed to terms with veteran guard Aaron Stinnie, who will return to East Rutherford for a second season. ESPN's Jeremy Fowler was the first to report the news. Stinnie, 31, signed with the Tennessee Titans as a rookie free agent out of James Madison in 2018. He spent one-plus season with the team before joining the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in 2019 (claimed off waivers), where he picked up a Super Bowl LV championship. After three-plus seasons with the Bucs, Stinnie signed a free agent deal with the Giants last March. Stinnie has appeared in 47 career games with 15 starts -- almost all of that time spent at left guard. However, he did see time at right guard earlier in his career. In 2024, Stinnie earned an overall grade of 47.9 from Pro Football Focus, including a 56.4 pass blocking grade, and a 50.5 run blocking grade.
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
Giants to re-sign OL Aaron Stinnie
Aaron Stinnie has agreed to a one-year deal to return to the Giants for 2025, Jeremy Fowler of ESPN reports. Stinnie, 31, signed a one-year, $1.293 million contract with the team last offseason and ended up playing 16 games with three starts with the Giants. He began his career with the Titans in 2018 and then went to the Bucs for 3 1/2 seasons. His stint in Tampa included 11 starts at left guard in 2023 but is best known for his play in the 2020 postseason when the Bucs won the Super Bowl. After starting right guard Alex Cappa fractured an ankle in a wild-card game against Washington, Stinnie stepped in and played well during the playoff run. In his career, Stinnie has appeared in 47 games with 15 starts in the regular season. He has played another seven postseason games with five starts.
