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
According to Petitioner, petitioner Bridget Hardt seeks attorney’s fees under ERISA §502(g)(1) after a procedural victory.
The case raises the question of whether a party who achieves only a procedural success, without final relief, is eligible for fee awards.
- [1] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, pp. 3–4
- [2] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, p. 20
- [3] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, p. 22
- [4] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, p. 23
- [5] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, p. 24
- [6] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, p. 43
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner, the Fourth Circuit vacated an award of attorney’s fees to Hardt even though the district court found the insurer violated ERISA in bad faith and ordered a redetermination of benefits within 30 days; Hardt subsequently secured full disability benefits.
The central legal question is whether a party who wins only a procedural victory may be awarded attorney’s fees under ERISA.
- [1] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, pp. 3–4
- [2] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, p. 20
- [3] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, p. 22
- [4] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, p. 23
- [5] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, p. 24
- [6] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, p. 43
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
Petitioner argues she is entitled to an attorney’s fee award under ERISA §502(g)(1) by applying the Court’s established fee standards.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Sotomayor asked: “How could somebody have some success on the merits if they don't achieve a judgment of some sort?”
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned whether fees are assessable when the only victory is procedural.
Justice Breyer asked whether a party who wins only a technical hearing should receive attorney’s fees.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts wondered about a scenario where a plaintiff wins every procedural issue but ultimately loses on the merits.
Justice Stevens asked whether treating the statute as having a prevailing‑party clause is appropriate.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer later questioned the discretion of district judges to award fees when the plaintiff obtains some benefit.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg posed a hypothetical about entitlement to documents in an interlocutory order.
Justice Sotomayor asked what distinguishes a prevailing party from a mere success on the merits.
- [1] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, p. 11
- [2] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, p. 20
- [3] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, p. 22
- [4] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, p. 23
- [5] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, p. 24
- [6] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, p. 37
- [7] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, p. 38
- [8] f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdf, p. 43
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.
- f770e1d7ada5565d9816-r1-dcda670d3683c788.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.