Kay v. Ehrler

499 U.S. 432 (1991)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is licensed to practice law in Florida. In 1980, he requested that the Kentucky Board of Elections place his name on the Democratic primary ballot for the office of President of the United States. The Board concluded that P was not a candidate who was generally advocated and nationally recognized and thus refused his request. P then filed an action on his own behalf in District Court challenging the Kentucky statute. The District Court held that the statute was invalid and entered an injunction that required P’s name to be put on the ballot. Two years later, Kentucky repealed the statute but in 1986 enacted the same statute again. In 1987, P requested his name be put on the ballot. When the Board refused, P again sued in District Court and prevailed. This time P requested a fee award pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. The District Court denied that request. The 6th Circuit affirmed stating that the language of the statute assumed the existence of a paying relationship between an attorney and a client. It also concluded that the purpose of the statute was best served when P hired an objective attorney rather than serving as both claimant and advocate. The dissenting judge emphasized the statutory goals of promoting lawsuits that protect civil rights. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.