Is it true that the ACLU gets paid for their participation in a case
by the US government?  This is to say that if someone brings a case
against the government and is represented by the ACLU, win or lose the
ACLU get paid by the government.

Hello aatrainer,

This idea appears on Free Republic and some other conservative sites. 
This doesn't make it right or wrong.  But I don't see evidence for the
view.  See, in particular:

"Is it true that the ACLU gets paid by our own government to sue .....
anyone or anything?"
Free Republic
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1460784/posts

This discussion cites the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of
1976, which amended 42 U.S.C. section 1988.

"Title 42 > Chapter 21 > Subchapter I > § 1988 -- Notes" [under "Short
Title of 1976 Amendment"]
Legal Information Institute (LII)
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001988----000-notes.html

Here is the statute as it appears on LII:

"Title 42 > Chapter 21 > Subchapter I > § 1988" (Release date: 2005-02-25)
LII
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1988&url=/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001988----000-.html

It says that "... the court, in its discretion, may allow the
prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable
attorney's fee as part of the costs ...."  The key phrase appears to
be "the prevailing party."

Perhaps the view that the government pays the ACLU even when the ACLU
doesn't represent a prevailing party stems from the phrase "other than
the United States."  One might conclude from that phrase alone that
the United States always loses under this statute -- in other words,
always pays money to the ACLU.  But while the United States apparently
cannot receive attorney's fees from the ACLU under this statute, it
appears that the ACLU cannot get attorney's fees from the government
either when it does not prevail.

[Please note the disclaimer at the bottom of this page, which states
that answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general
information, and are not intended to substitute for informed
professional legal advice.  I presume that you are not asking for
legal advice; but I note the disclaimer in the event that anyone
reading this answer is seeking such advice.]

- justaskscott


Search strategy --

Searched on Google for:

aclu "paid by * government"
"civil rights attorney's fees awards act of 1976"
"us code"
"prevailing party" 1988

---

Request for Answer Clarification by aatrainer-ga on 19 Aug 2005 06:21 PDT

This answer is too vague for my tastes.  This is a simple question
that should be answered as a yes or no. I am sure there are cases that
qualify for Government payment, if so what type of cases are they? 
This goes on every day and the answer should be very clear.

---

Clarification of Answer by justaskscott-ga on 19 Aug 2005 10:53 PDT

You state, "This goes on every day and the answer should be very
clear."  What is "this" which "goes on every day"?  Do you mean that
government payment of the ACLU in cases goes on every day -- whether
the ACLU wins or loses?  (If that were true, I think the Bush
administration would have tried to put a stop to it by now!)

What is your basis for saying "this goes on every day"?  If I know
your source for thinking so, then I will be able to explain a reason
why the source is incorrect or correct.

My answer to your question, as posted yesterday, is "no."  While the
government may be ordered to pay the ACLU in federal civil rights
cases when the ACLU is a prevaling party, the government doesn't pay
when the ACLU is not a prevailing party.  It is impossible to prove
any "no" answer, because there is always a theoretical possibility of
a "yes" answer.  If you can provide a basis for thinking that the
answer is "yes," then I can do follow-up research to determine whether
my answer should remain "no" or should change to "yes."

Regardless of how one might feel about the ACLU, it is worth pointing
out that the statute also applies for other attorneys who sue
successfully on behalf of a prevailing party.  Remember, there has to
be a prevailing party that was wronged by the government.  Of course,
the ACLU may be more active in trying to protect such parties, but if
the court decides against the government, justice has prevailed, the
choice of attorney should be immaterial.
To me, it does make sense that the government should pay if it has
acted contrary to its own laws.  That is part of the system to keep it
honest.  Sure, we have to pay for it, but in the end, I hope it
results in better government.
Myoarin

Aastrainer,
The answer is not vague; the answer to your question  - as you phrased it - 
is NO.  If the ACLU or any other attorney for a party in such a case
does not win the case, there will absolutely be no costs awarded to
the that party.
Makes sense, if you sue the government and lose, you shouldn't have
sued in the first place  - or you do so at your own risk.  In civil
cases against a private party, you might end up having to pay (some
of) their expenses.

Myoarin

the mistake all the responders are making is the assumption that this
was a real question. notice the question wasn't about any or all
participants in any case, the inquiry is only about the aclu. notice
again in the clarification where the answer is rejected as being
unclear, "This goes on every day and the answer should be very clear."
clear if you subscribe to sites that promote unproven,
unsubstantiated, unreliable, uncorroborated statements. but then there
is a slice of america that doesn't require any such things.

This was never a question, it was a weak attempt to give voice to
something the questioner has already decided to accept as fact and is
merely attempting to witness for the rest of us. the answer frustrated
the questioner and then rejected due to the researchers failure to
wave the questioners flag.

I agree with you, Elwtee-ga, about aatrainer's possible motives, but
it is a question, and  - despite Justaskscott-ga's tactful
clarification -  the second sentence of the question explains:
"This is to say that if someone brings a case against the government
and is represented by the ACLU, win or lose the ACLU get paid by the
government."

Aatrainer is not ask about any case, he is asking about every case
represented by the ACLU, and specifically including possible lost
cases.  (Theoretically, the ACLU could have won every case.)
So the answer is NO.

IF people want to post veiled political statements as questions, they
should not be left to stand unanswered.
Myoarin 
PS:  It is nice to note that the statute allows the judge discretion and 
specifies "reasonable attorney fees".

I am very interested that I stirred up such a dialog on such a simple
question.  This is not a political statement, I am just asking a very
real question about a very real issue. It's simple and straight
forward, the ACLU exists as a business only because there is an income
stream being funded by the taxpayers. Deal with it.

Aatrainer-ga.

The ACLU does NOT "exists as a business only because there is an income
stream being funded by the taxpayers." 

The ACLU is NOT a business, despite whatever you may think.  Your
question has been answered, and my comments were directed towards your
question.  Elwtee-ga's comment now appears to have been correctly
addressed to your basic distrust or misconception of the activities of
the ACLU.

http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm  

Myoarin