In the case of City of Burlington v. Ernest Dague, Sr., et al., 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that attorneys who take on cases under federal statutes allowing for fee-shifting (whereby the losing party pays the winning party's attorney fees) cannot be awarded "contingency enhancements." These are additional payments made to lawyers who accept a case with an uncertain outcome and risk not being paid if they lose. The court held that such enhancements could result in excessive compensation for attorneys taking on these types of cases and would discourage settlement negotiations by increasing potential costs for defendants. This unanimous decision clarified how attorney fees should be calculated in federal fee-shifting cases, ensuring fairness and predictability in legal proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for City of Burlington v. Ernest Dague, Sr., et al., Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to prohibit contingency enhancements in fee-shifting cases was inconsistent with past rulings and would discourage lawyers from taking on risky but important public interest litigation. He contended that by disallowing such enhancements, which compensate attorneys for assuming the risk of not being paid if they lose a case, the Court effectively reduced attorney’s fees below market rates. This could deter competent counsel from accepting cases where payment is uncertain or delayed until after lengthy litigation. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on legislative history rather than statutory text to justify its ruling and suggested it had misinterpreted Congress' intent behind fee-shifting statutes.