Case Explained: 26a0307n.06

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-15

The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s reduction of attorney’s fees awarded to prevailing plaintiffs in a First Amendment civil rights action and remanded the case for recalculation. The court held that while the district court did not abuse its discretion by adjusting hourly rates based on local market conditions, it erred by reducing the fee award by 50 percent due to alleged duplication of legal work and limited success without providing sufficient explanation. Regarding the standard of review, the court applied an abuse of discretion standard to the fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), requiring the district court to calculate a “lodestar figure” (reasonable hours times reasonable rate) before adjusting for the degree of success under *Hensley v. Eckerhart*. The court found the reduction in hourly rates permissible because the district court reasonably considered attorney experience and analogous cases. However, the court ruled that the 50 percent reduction for duplication was improper because the district court failed to identify specific duplicative efforts or explain why consolidation of two distinct cases justified reducing fees for separate legal teams. Furthermore, the court determined that labeling the plaintiffs’ victory as “technical or de minimis” was erroneous; obtaining a permanent injunction striking down an ordinance on its face constitutes significant success under *Hensley* and *McQueary v. Conway*, regardless of whether the plaintiffs prevailed on all four constitutional grounds raised. The court also affirmed the district court’s denial of specific litigation costs (transcript, process server, and PACER fees) under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, noting these expenses were either not reasonably necessary, did not meet statutory requirements for third-party payments, or fell outside recoverable categories. The practical consequence is that the case returns to the district court to recalculate the attorney’s fee award without the unjustified 50 percent reduction and to address the lack of explanation regarding legal duplication, while the denial of the specific costs remains in effect.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.