In January 2003, T. A. Wyner notified the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) of her intention on Valentine's Day to organize "antiwar artwork" on John MacArthur Beach State Park by photographing nude individuals arranged in a peace sign. The DEP advised her that such a demonstration would have to comply with the "Bathing Suit Rule," which requires visitors to Florida State Parks to wear "at a minimum, a thong and, if female, a bikini top."
In response, she filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida seeking injunctive relief against any police interference with "future expressive activities that may include non-erotic displays of nude human bodies."
In an emergency hearing, with DEP's attorneys participating by telephone, the District Court granted a preliminary injunction against interference with the display, but did allow the DEP to create a barrier around the display, protecting other visitors to the beach from unwanted views of the nakedness. The District Court hoped that this would safeguard Wyner's First Amendment rights, while also protecting Florida's interest in providing parks that can be enjoyed by everyone.
However, at the Valentine's Day display, the participants disregarded the barriers, and swam nude once the session was over, all in violation of the court's order.
After the event, Wyner attempted to make the preliminary injunction permanent, which would allow her to stage more nude displays in the future. The Court denied the request in light of the demonstrators' violation of the preliminary injunction. The Court agreed with the DEP's assertion that the "Bathing Suit Rule" was necessary to protect other visitors to the park, as the participants' actions made clear that less restrictive accommodations were ineffective.
While the District Court ultimately ruled against Wyner on the merits, it awarded her attorneys' fees for the initial stage of the litigation because she successfully obtained the preliminary injunction. Florida officials appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which affirmed the award, and then to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed.
Usually, parties to a lawsuit must pay their own attorneys' fees. However, federal civil rights statutes provide that courts may, in their discretion, award the "prevailing party" reasonable attorneys' fees. This provision encourages plaintiffs whose constitutional rights have been violated to enforce them.
Wyner argued that she "prevailed" by obtaining a preliminary injunction which was never overturned. Rather, subsequent events -- the nude swimmers' violation of the court order -- persuaded the Court to deny Wyner a permanent injunction. She thus argued that she should be considered a "prevailing party" for that discrete, initial phase of the litigation, and awarded fees.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that Wyner was not a prevailing party because her initial victory was "ephemeral" and the final decision on the merits ultimately went against her.
In other words, her claim to fees was totally denuded.
For a copy of the United States Supreme Court's decision in this case, please use this link: Sole v. Wyner