This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Supreme Court heard arguments about how attorney’s fees should be calculated under 28 U.S.C. § 1988. The parties debated whether the “lodestar” – the product of hourly rates and hours worked – is an absolute ceiling on fee awards or whether it can be exceeded in extraordinary circumstances.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioners (Governor Sonny Perdue and Kenny A.)
Petitioners contend that the $6 million lodestar award was insufficient to compensate for the quality of representation and results obtained.
Petitioners argue that the lodestar is not merely a guiding principle but an absolute ceiling on the fee award.
Respondents (Kenny A. by his next friend Linda Winn)
According to Respondents, respondents describe the fee arrangement as a “partial contingency or hybrid contingency” model, which combines discounted hourly rates with a success bonus rather than a pure hourly rate plus a large bonus.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 8e17507f94b7e648ecee-r1-b321065cff0ebec2.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.