Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources

By Lauren Fantroy-Winston

Overview

In Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources the Supreme addressed the issue of attorney's fees under the "prevailing party" standard in civil rights litigation. "Prevailing party" is a term of art that traditionally means a party that wins a suit or obtains an admission of liability. Specifically, the Court considered whether a plaintiff could be awarded attorney's fees if the defendant voluntarily changed their behavior in response to the lawsuit, without a formal court ruling or consent decree — a concept known as the "catalyst theory." As there is no enforceable change in the legal relationship between the parties here, Buckhannon cannot have been deemed to have prevailed for purposes of the FHAA or ADA.

Summary

The West Virginia Department of Health ordered the closure of Buckhannon Board and Care Home’s assisted living facility after it failed a fire marshal inspection for not meeting the state’s “self-preservation” requirement, which mandated that residents be capable of moving themselves in emergencies. Buckhannon challenged this order in court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that the requirement violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

While the lawsuit was pending, the West Virginia legislature repealed the self-preservation rule, leading the court to dismiss the case as moot. Buckhannon then sought attorney’s fees, asserting it was a “prevailing party” because its lawsuit prompted the repeal. Under the “catalyst theory,” plaintiffs could claim attorney’s fees if their legal action motivated the defendant’s voluntary change, even without a formal court ruling. However, the district court, relying on a Fourth Circuit decision rejecting the catalyst theory, denied the request for fees.

The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, concluding that, under the FHAA and ADA, only a court-ordered change in the legal relationship between the parties—such as a judgment or consent decree—would entitle a plaintiff to attorney’s fees. The Court’s decision restricted the awarding of fees to cases with judicially sanctioned relief, rejecting the catalyst theory as a basis for “prevailing party” status under these statutes.

Impact

The decision in Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources has had a substantial impact on civil rights and public interest litigation. Rejecting the catalyst theory as a basis for awarding attorney’s fees, the Supreme Court restricted plaintiffs’ ability to recover these fees unless a formal court judgment or consent decree changes the legal relationship between the parties. As a result, plaintiffs who achieve their desired outcomes through a defendant's voluntary policy change are no longer eligible for attorney’s fees without a court-ordered ruling.

This ruling discourages certain lawsuits aimed at policy reform, as plaintiffs and their attorneys may bear the costs of litigation without assurance of fee recovery unless they secure a formal judicial ruling. Critics argue that the decision may deter valid cases challenging discriminatory or harmful policies, as defendants can now avoid paying fees by making temporary changes without a lasting legal commitment. For civil rights organizations, the ruling necessitates a more cautious approach, requiring careful consideration of the likelihood of a judicial resolution or consent decree to justify the litigation expenses involved.

Court Documents:

To read more about Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources click here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/532/598/