Supreme Court docket declines to step into former GOP Rep. Steve King's meme battle 

The Supreme Court docket on Tuesday declined to revive former Rep. Steve King’s (R-Iowa) bid to obtain attorneys’ charges in a copyright battle that stemmed from a meme posted by his marketing campaign. 

A jury ordered King’s marketing campaign to pay $750 for utilizing the “Success Kid” meme in its fundraising supplies, together with in a Fb submit that learn “FUND OUR MEMES!!!” with a hyperlink to a donation web page. 

King argued he’s entitled to attorneys’ charges from Laney Griner, the mother of the 11-month-old boy who appeared with a clenched first within the viral meme. Griner owns the copyright to the meme template and sued King for utilizing it on social media and his marketing campaign web site. 

King misplaced his major in 2020 after being stripped of his committees for questioning why the phrases white nationalism and white supremacy had been thought of offensive. 

“This case involves Griner’s use of lawfare, which is the use of the legal system for the ulterior purpose of draining the energy, time, and resources of a defendant, particularly when the return on investment of the legal action is disproportionate to the action’s costs and fees,” attorneys for King’s marketing campaign wrote of their Supreme Court docket petition.  

Griner received the $750 at trial solely after declining King’s $15,000 settlement supply. 

Federal guidelines present {that a} plaintiff who declines such a suggestion should pay for subsequent litigation “costs” in the event that they fail to obtain a extra favorable judgment. 

Decrease courts dominated that though King was entitled to obtain reimbursement for different bills, like printing and transcript prices, federal copyright regulation didn’t allow him to get well attorneys’ charges. 

“Respondents have not found a single court ruling in the past twenty years allowing a non-prevailing defendant to recover attorney’s fees as part of its post-Rule 68 costs where the underlying statute reserves attorneys’ fees for the ‘prevailing party,’” Griner’s legal professional wrote in courtroom filings. 

“Rather, every case this century to consider the question, and nearly all before then, has found that a non-prevailing defendant may not do so,” the submitting continued.