Per Curiam.
In the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, Congress amended 42 U. S. C. § 1988 to permit the award of a reasonable attorney’s fee to the “prevailing party” as part of the taxable costs in a suit brought under any of several specified civil rights statutes. The respondents brought suit under three of those statutes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that their constitutional rights had been violated by the petitioners, and seeking money damages from them. The District Court directed verdicts for the petitioners, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the District Court for a new trial, 600 P. 2d 600. The Court of Appeals also awarded to the respondents their costs on appeal, including attorney’s fees which it believed to be authorized by § 1988. Id., at 643-644.
The final sentence of § 1988, as amended, provides as follows:
“In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, . . . 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,” 42 U. S. C. § 1988.
The statute by its terms thus permits the award of attorney’s fees only to a “prevailing party.” Accordingly, in the present cases, the Court of Appeals was authorized to award to the respondents the attorney’s fees attributable to their appeal only if, by reason of obtaining a partial reversal of the trial court’s judgment, they “prevailed” within the meaning of § 1988. The Court of Appeals believed that they had prevailed with respect to the appeal in this case, resting its conclusion upon the following appellate rulings favorable to the respondents: (1) the reversal of the District Court’s judgment directing verdicts against them, save with respect to certain of the defendants; (2) the reversal of the District Court’s denial of their motion to discover the identity of an informant; and (3) the direction to the District Court on-remand to consider allowing further discovery, and to conduct a hearing on the respondents’ contention that the conduct of some of the petitioners in response to the trial court’s discovery orders warranted the imposition of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 (b)(2). While the respondents did prevail on these matters in the sense that the Court of Appeals overturned several rulings against them by the District Court, they were not, we have concluded, “prevailing” parties in the sense intended by 42 U. S. C. § 1988, as amended.
The legislative history of the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976 indicates that a person may in some circumstances be a “prevailing party” without having obtained a favorable “final judgment following a full trial on the merits,” H. R. Rep. No. 94H558, p. 7 (1976). See also S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 5 (1976). Thus, for example, “parties may be considered to have prevailed when they vindicate rights through a consent judgment or without formally obtaining relief,” ibid. See also H. R. Rep. No. 94-1558, supra, at 7, and cases cited; Dawson v. Pastrick, 600 F. 2d 70, 78 (CA7 1979); Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F. 2d 275, 279-281 (CA1 1978).
It is evident also that Congress contemplated the award of fees pendente lite in some cases. S. Rep. No. 94-1011, supra, at 5; H. R. Rep. No. 94-1558, supra, at 7-8. But it seems clearly to have been the intent of Congress to permit such an interlocutory award only to a party who has established his entitlement to some relief on the merits of his claims, either in the trial court or on appeal. The congressional Committee Reports described what were considered to be appropriate circumstances for such an award by reference to two cases — Bradley v. Richmond School Board, 416 U. S. 696 (1974), and Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 396 U. S. 375 (1970). S. Rep. No. 94-1011, supra, at 5; H. R. Rep. No. 94-1558, supra, at 8. In each of those cases the party to whom fees were awarded had established the liability of the opposing party, although final remedial orders had not been entered. The House Committee Report, moreover, approved the standard suggested by this Court in Bradley, that “ ‘the entry of any order that determines substantial rights of the parties may be an appropriate occasion upon which to consider the propriety of an award of counsel fees ...,’” H. R. Rep. No. 94-1558, supra, at 8, quoting Bradley v. Richmond School Board, supra, at 723, n. 28. Similarly, the Senate Committee Report explained that the award of counsel fees pendente lite would be “especially appropriate where a party has prevailed on an important matter in the course of litigation, even when he ultimately does not prevail on all issues.” S. Rep. No. 94-1011, supra, at 5 (emphasis added). It seems apparent from these passages that Congress intended to permit the interim award of counsel fees only when a party has prevailed on the merits of at least some of his claims. For only in that event has there been a determination of the “substantial rights of the parties,” which Congress determined was a necessary foundation for departing from the usual rule in this country that each party is to bear the expense of his own attorney.
The respondents have of course not prevailed on the merits of any of their claims. The Court of Appeals held only that the respondents were entitled to a trial of their cause. As a practical matter they are in a position no different from that they would have occupied if they had simply defeated the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict in the trial court. The jury may or may not decide some or all of the issues in favor of the respondents. If the jury should not do so on remand in these cases, it could not seriously be contended that the respondents had prevailed. See Swietlowich v. Bucks County, 620 F. 2d 33, 34 (CA3 1980). Nor may they fairly be said to have “prevailed” by reason of the Court of Appeals’ other interlocutory dispositions, which affected only the extent of discovery. As is true of other procedural or evidentiary rulings, these determinations may affect the disposition on the merits, but were themselves not matters on which a party could “prevail” for purposes of shifting his counsel fees to the opposing party under § 1988. See Bly v. McLeod, 605 F. 2d 134, 137 (CA4 1979).
The motion of Fraternal Order of Police of the State of Illinois in ease No. 79-912 for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, is granted.
The respondents’ motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted, the petitions for certiorari are granted, limited to the question of the propriety of the award of attorney’s fees by the Court of Appeals, and the judgment is reversed insofar as it awarded attorney’s fees to the respondents. In all other respects, the petitions for certiorari are denied.
It is so ordered.
Me. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
The controversy arose from the execution in 1969 of a judicial warrant to search for and seize illegal weapons within an apartment in Chicago occupied by nine members of the Black Panther Party. In the course of the search two of the apartment’s occupants were killed by gunfire, and four others were wounded. The police seized various weapons and arrested the seven surviving occupants of the apartment. The survivors were indicted by a state grand jury on charges of attempted murder and aggravated battery, but the indictments ultimately were dismissed. Those seven persons and the legal representatives of the two persons killed are the respondents in these cases. Named as defendants in the respondents’ suits were Cook County, the city of Chicago, and various state and local oficiáis allegedly involved in the search or its aftermath. Those officials are the petitioners in No. 79-912. After proceedings in the District Court and the Court of Appeals resulted in the dismissal of the complaint against the city and the county, see Hampton v. Chicago, 339 F. Supp. 695 (ND Ill. 1972), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 484 F. 2d 602 (CA7 1973), the respondents filed an amended complaint naming as additional defendants the three Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and an informant who are the petitioners in No. 79-914.
The respondents based their claims on 42 U. S. C. §§ 1983, 1985 (3) (1976 ed., Supp. II), and 1986, and on provisions of the Constitution. They also alleged various causes of action under state law.
In an unpublished supplemental opinion issued on December 12, 1979 (as amended December 21, 1979), fixing the amount of the fee award, the Court of Appeals reiterated its conclusion that the respondents were “prevailing parties” within the meaning of 42 U. S. C. § 1988.
The Court of Appeals recognized that the respondents had not “prevailed” in the District Court, and for that reason limited the award of counsel fees to those incurred by the respondents in the course of the appeal. 600 F. 2d 600, 643-644.
The provision for counsel fees in § 1988 was patterned upon the attorney’s fees provisions contained in Titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000a-3 (b) and 2000e-5 (k), and § 402 of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1975, 42 U. S. C. § 19731 (e). S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 2 (1976); H. R. Rep. No. 94-1558, p. 5 (1976). Those provisions have been construed by the Courts of Appeals to permit the award of counsel fees only to a party who has prevailed on the merits of a claim. See Bly v. McLeod, 605 F. 2d 134, 137 (CA4 1979) (Voting Rights Act); Chinese for Affirmative Action v. Leguennec, 580 F. 2d 1006, 1009 (CA9 1978) (same); Grubbs v. Butz, 179 U. S. App. D. C. 18, 20-21, 548 F. 2d 973, 975-976 (1976) (Title VII); Sperling v. United States, 515 F. 2d 465, 485 (CA3 1975) (same). See also Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U. S. 412, 418 (1978) (“[W]hen a district court awards counsel fees [under the Civil Rights Act of 1964] to a prevailing plaintiff, it is awarding them against a violator of federal law”). But cf. Van Hoomissen v. Xerox Corp., 503 F. 2d 1131, 1133 (CA9 1974).
In the cases cited by the Court of Appeals to justify the award of counsel fees in these cases, those to whom fees were awarded had prevailed on the merits of at least some of their claims. See Davis v. Murphy, 587 F. 2d 362, 363-364 (CA7 1978); Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F. 2d 275, 279-281 (CA1 1978); Wharton v. Knefel, 562 F. 2d 550, 556 (CA8 1977).
The Court of Appeals stated that, in reversing the directed verdicts, it was “not passing on the ultimate validity of [the respondents’] claims,” 600 F. 2d, at 621, n. 20. Indeed, Chief Judge Fairchild emphasized in his concurring opinion that the court’s use of the phrase “ ‘prima facie’ case” in referring to the evidence adduced by the respondents should not be taken to mean that at “any stage of this case . . . the evidence compelled a verdict for [the respondents] unless rebutted.” Id., at 648.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine whether the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed was itself liberal or conservative. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. The lower court's decision direction is unspecifiable if the manner in which the Supreme Court took jurisdiction is original or certification; or if the direction of the Supreme Court's decision is unspecifiable and the main issue pertains to private law or interstate relations