In the case of Egbert v. Boule, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court's decision to deny an attorney fees award in a civil rights action violated the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 (the "Act"). The Court held that it did not, as there was no evidence that the state court had acted with discriminatory intent or purpose when denying the fee award. The Court further noted that even if such intent were present, it would be insufficient for finding liability under 42 U.S.C § 1988(b), which requires proof of intentional discrimination by a governmental entity or official acting under color of law in order to establish liability for damages and attorneys' fees awards pursuant to Section 1988(b). Thus, because there was no evidence presented at trial indicating any discriminatory animus on behalf of either party involved in this dispute, nor any other basis upon which relief could have been granted pursuant to Section 1988(b), Egbert’s claim failed and his request for an attorney fees award was denied by both lower courts and affirmed by SCOTUS.

In the case of Egbert v. Boule, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. Justice Harlan, however, dissented from the majority opinion. He argued that the state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. He argued that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right that could not be denied by the state court. He further argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ because the prisoner was still in the custody of the state. Justice Harlan argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus because the prisoner was still in the custody of the state. He argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ because the prisoner was still in the custody of the state and the state court had the authority to determine the legality of the prisoner's confinement. He argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ because the prisoner was still in the custody of the state and the state court had the authority to determine the legality of the prisoner's confinement. Justice Harlan argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus because the prisoner was still in the custody of the state and the state court had the authority to determine the legality of the prisoner's confinement. He argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ because the prisoner was still in the custody of the state and the state court had the authority to determine the legality of the prisoner's confinement. He argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ because the prisoner was still in the custody of the state and the state court had the authority to determine the legality of the prisoner's confinement. He argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ because the prisoner was still in the custody of the state and the state court had the authority to determine the legality of the prisoner's confinement. He argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ because the prisoner was still in the custody of the state and the state court had the authority to determine the legality of the prisoner's confinement. He argued that the