法律诉讼案例.docx

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESSTEVEN LEFEMINE, DBA COLUMBIA CHRISTIANS FOR LIFE v. DAN WIDEMAN ET AL.ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITEDSTATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUITNo. 12–168.Decided November 5, 2012This case concerns the award of attorney’s fees in a suit alleging unconstitutional conduct by government officials. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a plaintiff who secured a permanent injunction but no monetary damages was not a “prevailing party” under 42 U. S. C. §1988, and so could not receive fees. That was error. Because the injunction ordered the de-fendant officials to change their behavior in a way that directly benefited the plaintiff, we vacate the Fourth Cir-cuit’s decision and remand for further proceedings.***Petitioner Steven Lefemine and members of Columbia Christians for Life (CCL) engage in demonstrations in which they carry pictures of aborted fetuses to protest the availability of abortions. On November 3, 2005, Lefemine and about 20 other CCL members conducted such a demonstration at a busy intersection in Greenwood Coun-ty, South Carolina. Citing complaints about the graphic signs, a Greenwood County police officer informed Lefem-ine that if the signs were not discarded, he would be tick-eted for breach of the peace. Lefemine objected, asserting that the officer was violating his First Amendment rights, but the threat eventually caused him to disband thepro-test.A year later, an attorney for Lefemine sent a letter to2LEFEMINE v. WIDEMANDan Wideman, the sheriff of Greenwood County, informing him that the group intended to return to the same site with the disputed signs. The letter cautioned that further interference would cause Lefemine “‘to pursue all avail-able legal remedies.’” Id., at 619. Chief Deputy Mike Frederick responded that the police had not previously violated Lefemine’s rights, and warned that “‘should we observe any protester or demonstrator committing the same act