Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. 390 U.S. 400 (1968), is a 1968 United States Supreme Court case in which the court held, per curiam, that following a successful effort to obtain an injunction under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that attorney's fees under § 204(b) were generally recoverable.^[1]

Background

Piggie Park Enterprises was, in 1964, a drive-in BBQ chain with four restaurants, created and operated by Maurice Bessinger, the Baptist head of the National Association for the Preservation of White People.^[2][3] Bessinger's restaurants did not allow African-Americans to eat in the restaurant.^[4] Following Bessinger's refusal to allow Anne Newman,^[5] an African-American minister's wife into his restaurant, then-lawyer Matthew J. Perry filed a class action lawsuit against the chain.

Procedural history

Perry's lawsuit was first heard in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina with Charles Earl Simons, Jr. presiding.^[6]

The plaintiffs argued that Piggie Park's exclusion of African-Americans constituted a violation of Title II. The defendant Bessinger denied the discrimination, denied that the restaurants were public accommodations in the meaning of the Act (as did not, in his view, involve interstate commerce), and argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as "his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."^[7] Simons held the Act did not apply to drive-in restaurants, but did apply to Bessinger's sandwich shop.^[6] On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed the lower court and remanded the case back to the district court, instructing that court to "award counsel fees 'only to the extent that the respondents' defenses had been advanced "for purposes of delay, and not in good faith."' The Supreme Court granted certiorari to the question of whether the exclusion for good-faith defense was correct.^[8]

Ruling of the Court

An 8-0 unanimous court (Marshall not participating) held full attorneys fees should generally be recoverable, based on the intent and practical effect of the law. The Court wrote:

When a plaintiff brings an action under that Title, he cannot recover damages. If he obtains an injunction, he does so not for himself alone, but also as a "private attorney general," vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority. If successful plaintiffs were routinely forced to bear their own attorneys' fees, few aggrieved parties would be in a position to advance the public interest by invoking the injunctive powers of the federal courts. Congress therefore enacted the provision for counsel fees -- not simply to penalize litigants who deliberately advance arguments they know to be untenable but, more broadly, to encourage individuals injured by racial discrimination to seek judicial relief under Title II.

It follows that one who succeeds in obtaining an injunction under that Title should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.^[8]

Subsequent developments

This language has been said to form of a "cornerstone" for the text of the 1967 Attorney's Fees Act.^[9] Newman is seen as an early step in toward the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976 and more generally the American rule.^[10]

See also

• Bouie v. City of Columbia: Supreme Court case involving a sit-in at a lunch counter in Columbia
• Katzenbach v. McClung: Supreme Court case desegregating Ollie's Barbecue Restaurant in Alabama
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 390

References

External links

• District Court ruling at Leagle
• Case at Oyez, including audio and transcript of the oral arguments