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

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

A jury ordered King’s campaign to pay $750 for using the “Success Kid” meme in its fundraising materials, including in a Facebook post that read “FUND OUR MEMES!!!” with a link to a donation page. 

King argued he is entitled to attorneys’ fees from Laney Griner, the mom of the 11-month-old boy who appeared with a clenched first in the viral meme. Griner owns the copyright to the meme template and sued King for using it on social media and his campaign website. 

King lost his primary in 2020 after being stripped of his committees for questioning why the terms white nationalism and white supremacy were considered 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 campaign wrote in their Supreme Court petition.  

Griner won the $750 at trial only after declining King’s $15,000 settlement offer. 

Federal rules provide that a plaintiff who declines such an offer must pay for subsequent litigation “costs” if they fail to receive a more favorable judgment. 

Lower courts ruled that although King was entitled to receive reimbursement for other expenses, like printing and transcript costs, federal copyright law did not enable him to recover attorneys’ fees. 

“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 attorney wrote in court 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 filing continued.