In the case of Maher, Commissioner of Income Maintenance of Connecticut v. Gagne in 1979, the Supreme Court ruled that attorneys' fees could be awarded to plaintiffs who had successfully sued for enforcement of federal rights under Section 1983 and achieved benefits through a consent decree. The plaintiff, Gagne, was part of a class action lawsuit against Connecticut's welfare system alleging violations under Social Security Act and due process clause. While no final judgement was made as both parties reached an agreement (consent decree), Gagne sought attorney’s fees which were denied by lower courts on grounds that Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act only applied to enforceable judgements or decrees. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that Congress intended for successful litigants like Gagne to recover their legal costs when they've vindicated federal rights via consent decrees.

In the dissenting opinion for Maher v. Gagne, Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 1988, arguing that it was not intended to provide attorney's fees in cases where constitutional rights were not at stake. He contended that Congress had specifically limited such awards to certain types of civil rights litigation and did not intend for them to be available in all cases involving federal laws or regulations. Furthermore, he argued that by allowing plaintiffs who prevail on statutory claims to recover attorney’s fees under Section 1988 even when they do not prevail on their constitutional claims would result in a significant expansion of the statute beyond its original intent and purpose as understood by Congress.