In the 1985 case Pennsylvania et al. v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over attorney's fees in a lawsuit under the Clean Air Act. The Delaware Valley Citizens' Council had successfully sued Pennsylvania to enforce air quality standards, and was awarded legal fees as part of their victory. However, they sought additional compensation due to the complexity of the litigation and because they were working on contingency (only getting paid if they won). The court split its decision: it unanimously agreed that contingency could not be considered when calculating reasonable attorney’s fees but divided evenly on whether or not complexity should factor into fee calculations, leaving lower court rulings intact by default which allowed for increased payment based on complex litigation.

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 argued that the majority's decision to not award attorney fees under the Clean Air Act was a misinterpretation of Congressional intent. They contended that Congress intended to ensure citizens could act as "private attorneys general" in enforcing environmental laws and should be adequately compensated for their efforts. The dissenters believed this included compensation for time spent on litigation over reasonable attorney’s fees, which is often complex and lengthy due to its adversarial nature. They also disagreed with the majority's view that risk-enhancement was inappropriate in statutory fee-shifting cases, arguing it would discourage lawyers from taking up such public interest cases where success is uncertain but important rights are at stake.