We'll hear argument next in case 23-621, Lackey v. Stinney.

Ms. Melley?

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the prevailing party is the party who wins the lawsuit,

obtaining a final judgment in its favor, or at least, a party who obtains a ruling

that the defendant is liable on the merits of one or more

claims, such as a summary judgment or a judgment as a matter of law. A preliminary injunction

is neither a final judgment nor a determination that the defendant is liable on the merits

for violating federal law. It is simply a threshold prediction of the likelihood of success,

based on a truncated record and an initial, often hasty, assessment of the law that may well prove to be

faulty as the case proceeds. It provides no enduring relief. By its nature, it is a temporary

procedural order that dissolves

upon final judgment. A preliminary injunction, therefore, does not make a plaintiff a prevailing

party within the meaning of that legal term of art, and thus no statutory exception to the default

American rule applies. Legal dictionaries at the time

Congress enacted Section 1988 define prevailing party based on whether the party had successfully

maintained its claim looking to the end of the suit, not on its degree of success at earlier stages.

This Court's precedent similarly provides that liability for fees and liability on the merits go hand in hand.

The Court should therefore adopt a bright-line rule serving the critical interest in ready administrability

that a preliminary injunction does not

make a plaintiff the prevailing party. I look forward to this Court's questions.

Can a consent decree or default judgment support a prevailing party? Yes, I think so, Justice Thomas, under this Court's precedent,

the Court held in mayor, that a consent decree qualifies. And it's suggested in Kurt saying

...