In the case of Pennsylvania et al. v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air et al., 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a successful party in a lawsuit under the Clean Air Act could recover attorney's fees for work done to monitor and enforce a consent decree after it had been entered by the court. The state of Pennsylvania argued that such post-judgment monitoring activities were not compensable as they did not contribute to success on any issue in litigation before judgment was entered. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Delaware Valley Citizens' Council, stating that reasonable attorney’s fees can be awarded for legal services performed subsequent to judgment if these efforts are necessary and useful towards ensuring compliance with a court order. This decision underscored how important enforcement is within environmental law cases, acknowledging that ongoing oversight often plays an essential role in achieving desired outcomes.

In the dissenting opinion for Pennsylvania et al. v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air et al., Justice Blackmun, joined by Justices Brennan, Marshall and Stevens, disagreed with the majority's decision to deny additional attorney's fees under the Clean Air Act. They argued that Congress intended to ensure adequate compensation for public interest lawyers who take on complex and risky cases against well-funded opponents in order to enforce environmental laws. The dissenters believed that this should include a fee enhancement or "multiplier" based on exceptional success in litigation as it would incentivize competent attorneys to undertake such cases which are crucial for enforcing environmental protections but may not be financially rewarding otherwise.