SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
MELENE JAMES v. CITY OF BOISE, IDAHO,
et al.
on petition for writ of certiorari to the
supreme court of idaho
No. 15–493. Decided January 25, 2016
Per Curiam.
Under federal law, a court has discretion to
“allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a
reason-able attorney’s fee” in a civil rights lawsuit filed under
42 U. S. C. §1983. 42 U. S. C. §1988. In
Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U. S. 5 (1980) (per
curiam), this Court interpreted §1988 to permit a prevailing
defendant in such a suit to recover fees only if “the plaintiff’s
action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.”
Id., at 14 (quoting Christiansburg Garment Co. v.
EEOC, 434 U. S. 412, 421 (1978) (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
In the decision below, the Idaho Supreme Court
concluded that it was not bound by this Court’s interpretation of
§1988 in Hughes. According to that court, “[a]lthough the
Supreme Court may have the authority to limit the discretion of
lower federal courts, it does not have the authority to limit the
discretion of state courts where such limitation is not contained
in the statute.” 158 Idaho713, 734, 351 P. 3d 1171, 1192
(2015). The court then pro-ceeded to award attorney’s fees under
§1988 to a prevailing defendant without first determining that “the
plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without
foundation.” The court’s fee award rested solely on its
interpretation of federal law; the court explicitly refused to
award fees under state law. Id., at 734–735, 351 P. 3d,
at 1192–1193. We grant certiorari, and now reverse.
Section 1988 is a federal statute. “It is this
Court’s responsibility to say what a [federal] statute means, and
once the Court has spoken, it is the duty of other courts to
respect that understanding of the governing rule of law.”
Nitro-Lift Technologies, L. L. C. v. Howard, 568
U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (per curiam) (slip op., at 5)
(quoting Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511
U. S. 298, 312 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted)). And
for good reason. As Justice Story explained 200 years ago, if state
courts were permitted to disregard this Court’s rulings on federal
law, “the laws, the treaties, and the constitution of the United
States would be different in different states, and might, perhaps,
never have precisely the same construction, obligation, or
efficacy, in any two states. The public mischiefs that would attend
such a state of things would be truly deplorable.” Martin v.
Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 348 (1816).
The Idaho Supreme Court, like any other state or
fed-eral court, is bound by this Court’s interpretation of federal
law. The state court erred in concluding otherwise. The judgment of
the Idaho Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for
further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
