In the case of Evans v. Jeff D., the Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that a federal court could approve a consent decree providing prospective relief and conditioning it on waiver of attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, even if such relief would not have been approved after contested litigation. The case involved Idaho officials who were sued for allegedly failing to provide adequate treatment to mentally handicapped children in violation of their constitutional rights. A settlement was reached where plaintiffs waived any claim for attorneys' fees in return for defendants agreeing to take certain actions beyond what they believed was required by law. The District Court approved this agreement but Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that fee waivers should be disallowed as contrary to public policy expressed in Fees Awards Act which aimed at encouraging private enforcement of civil rights legislation through awarding attorney’s fees.

In the dissenting opinion for Evans v. Jeff D., it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a "package deal" settlement, which included waiving of attorney's fees in exchange for relief on behalf of their clients, could potentially undermine Congress' intent behind fee-shifting statutes. These statutes were designed to encourage attorneys to represent indigent clients and public interest causes by ensuring they would be compensated if successful. The dissent feared this ruling might discourage lawyers from taking up such cases as they may not receive adequate compensation due to bargaining power imbalances during settlements negotiations. They also expressed concern over potential conflicts of interest between attorneys and their clients when deciding whether or not to waive fees in order to secure other forms of relief.