Angela Ciolfi
@angelaciolfi.bsky.social
Shocked but not surprised. Doer of hard things @LegalAidJustice
December 31, 2025 at 11:50 PM
ICYMI - A big THANK YOU to @jamellebouie.net for highlighting the Legal Aid Justice Center's work in Saturday's @nytopinion.nytimes.com column on the importance of joining our neighbors in a common endeavor by giving locally. www.nytimes.com/2025/12/06/o...
Opinion | How to Help the People Around You
www.nytimes.com
December 8, 2025 at 9:43 PM
ICYMI - A big THANK YOU to @jamellebouie.net for highlighting the Legal Aid Justice Center's work in Saturday's @nytopinion.nytimes.com column on the importance of joining our neighbors in a common endeavor by giving locally. www.nytimes.com/2025/12/06/o...
This decision in our case couldn’t come at a worse time. Just when the civil rights enforcement apparatus inside government is being dismantled, the Supreme Court delivers a heavy blow to private civil rights enforcement.
SCOTUS' second and final decision is Lackey v. Stinnie. By a 7–2 vote, the court holds that plaintiffs' lawyers are not the "prevailing party"—and can't collect attorneys' fees—when they win a preliminary injunction, then the state repeals the challenged law. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
![Section 1988(b) permits courts to award attorney’s fees to
a “prevailing party.” A party “prevails” when a court conclusively resolves his claim by granting enduring relief on
the merits that alters the legal relationship between the
parties. Critically, both the change in relationship and its
permanence must result from a judicial order. A preliminary injunction, which temporarily preserves the parties’
litigating positions based in part on a prediction of the likelihood of success on the merits, does not render a plaintiff a
“prevailing party.” Nor do external events that moot the
action and prevent the court from conclusively adjudicating
the claim. Because the drivers in the present case gained
only preliminary injunctive relief before this action became
moot, they do not qualify as “prevailing part[ies]” eligible
for attorney’s fees under §1988(b).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreihte5yx2krhmgxuzwmotbbd4ykmkmouaphdhcipvoakcrtifoye2e@jpeg)
February 25, 2025 at 9:45 PM
This decision in our case couldn’t come at a worse time. Just when the civil rights enforcement apparatus inside government is being dismantled, the Supreme Court delivers a heavy blow to private civil rights enforcement.
"We are in a long struggle. In order to engage in that kind of long struggle, we have to imagine ourselves as much bigger than we think we are." -- Angela Davis, Jan 16, 2025
January 26, 2025 at 12:42 PM
"We are in a long struggle. In order to engage in that kind of long struggle, we have to imagine ourselves as much bigger than we think we are." -- Angela Davis, Jan 16, 2025