The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision today authored by Gorsuch, Sotomayor wrote dissent joined by the other liberal Justices. Reminds me of the truck driver case that caused so much consternation during Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings. Like that case: it was a matter of statutory interpretation and not a big controversial social issue; involved a sympathetic set of facts; and the law seems like it could almost be read either way.
The basic facts from the link:
The case concerned Charles Murphy, an Illinois inmate badly beaten by prison guards, who crushed his eye socket. Mr. Murphy sued the guards, winning about $307,000 and $108,000 in attorney’s fees.
The question in the case was how to interpret a federal law that says in such cases “a portion of the judgment (not to exceed 25 percent) shall be applied to satisfy the amount of attorney’s fees awarded against the defendant.”
A trial judge ordered Mr. Murphy to pay 10 percent of his award to his lawyers, but an appeals court ruled that the law required the full 25 percent.
I don’t understand, wouldn’t what the attorneys get depend on the agreement made between them and Charles Murphy?