USAnudist.com

T. A. Wyner organized a nude political protest on a Florida state beach park in 2003. Federal laws require attorney fees to be paid for those involved in civil liberties actions.

Wyner received a temporary injunction allowing the protest, but the state of Florda refused to pay the fees because the injunction was only temporary. The case was heard today by the US Supreme Court.

For more, read the SOURCE or

Nude peace protest argued as right to bear fees

By Larry Lipman
Palm Beach Post Washington Bureau
Wednesday, April 18, 2007

WASHINGTON — A nude peace protest at John D. MacArthur Beach State Park in 2003 was the catalyst for an oral argument Tuesday before the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, the argument was over legal fees rather than nudity.

“This is about whether or not individuals who have civil liberties actions are going to have access to the courts,” said Randall Marshall, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, who argued the case before the federal high court.

“If you cut off the ability to get attorneys fees, a lot of people are never going to make it into the courthouse,” Marshall said.

The case stemmed from the Valentine’s Day 2003 nude protest against the likelihood that the United States would go to war against Iraq.

Longtime Fort Pierce naturist T. A. Wyner organized the event in which 23 protesters lay in the sand to form a peace symbol.

Despite a state law banning nudity on the beach, law enforcement officials were restrained from making any arrests because of a temporary injunction a federal district judge had issued days earlier.

The judge noted that the state, under a previous case Wyner and others had brought, allowed brief nudity on the beach as part of theatrical productions, but was attempting to block the nudity in the peace protest because it was considered political.

The judge also awarded legal fees to Wyner and the peace activists for work done in obtaining the preliminary injunction. Under federal law, the prevailing case in a civil suit in which an injunction is sought is entitled to attorney fees from the losing party.

Wyner and George Simon, an activist from Hawaii who videotaped the protest, also sought a permanent injunction that would block the state from prohibiting future nude protests. They lost that effort.

The state, with support from the federal government, appealed the award of attorney fees for the preliminary injunction on the grounds that Wyner and Simon ultimately lost their underlying case to allow nude protests.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, however, ruled that the protestors were entitled to attorney fees because they had won the preliminary injunction that allowed that specific protest to proceed.

Marshall, the ACLU lawyer, said he was “encouraged by … the healthy skepticism, if not an outright rejection, of the state’s position,” by the justices.

He said it was less clear whether the court ultimately would rule that the protesters could be categorized as the prevailing party. Attorneys for the state argued that Wyner and Simon should not be considered such because they never won a permanent injunction on the merits of their case.