In Hanrahan et al. v. Hampton et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a case involving damages awarded to plaintiffs in a civil rights lawsuit against police officers and city officials of Chicago, Illinois. The original suit was filed by family members of two Black Panther Party activists who were killed during a police raid in 1969, alleging that their constitutional rights had been violated due to excessive force used by the police and conspiracy among city officials to cover up these actions. A jury initially found for defendants but an appellate court reversed this decision, ordering new trials on certain claims and awarding costs to plaintiffs as prevailing parties under Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976. The Supreme Court held that since the judgment did not assess liability or provide relief other than costs, it could not be considered final or appealable under federal law until all issues including those remanded for retrial were resolved definitively at trial level. Therefore, they vacated the judgement regarding attorney fees awards and sent back down for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

In the dissenting opinion for Hanrahan et al. v. Hampton et al., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to overturn a lower court ruling was based on an incorrect interpretation of federal law regarding civil rights violations and police misconduct. He contended that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to support their claims, including testimony from eyewitnesses who saw police officers fire into an apartment without warning or provocation, killing two individuals inside. In his view, this constituted a clear violation of constitutional rights warranting compensation under federal law. Justice Stevens also criticized the majority for ignoring key facts in favor of technical legal arguments about what constitutes "action" by state officials under Section 1983 of Title 42 U.S.C.A., which provides remedies for deprivation of civil rights under color of any statute, ordinance or regulation etcetera. He further asserted that it is not necessary for plaintiffs to prove intent in order to establish liability; rather they only need show that defendants acted recklessly with deliberate indifference towards their safety and well-being - something he believed they had done convincingly in this case.