In the Venegas v. Mitchell case of 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff who wins a civil rights lawsuit under federal law can be held responsible for his attorney's fees beyond what he might recover from the defendant in such cases. The decision came after Pedro Venegas sued two police officers alleging violation of his civil rights and won $13,000 in damages but was billed by his lawyers for $93,000 as legal fees which were not fully covered by the defendants. He argued that this violated Section 1988 of Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act which allows prevailing parties to receive reasonable attorney’s fee from losing party. However, Justice Thurgood Marshall writing for majority stated that nothing in section 1988 limits contractual obligations between plaintiffs and their attorneys nor does it guarantee free or cheap legal assistance.

In the dissenting opinion for Venegas v. Mitchell, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with Congress' intent in enacting fee-shifting statutes like 42 U.S.C. §1988. He contended that such laws were designed to encourage attorneys to represent civil rights plaintiffs by ensuring they would be adequately compensated for their work if they prevailed, even if their clients could not afford to pay them otherwise. By allowing a plaintiff's attorney and client to agree on a higher fee than what is awarded under §1988, he believed it undermined this purpose because it discouraged lawyers from taking on these cases due to potential financial risk. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the impact of this ruling on future civil rights litigation as it might deter less affluent individuals from pursuing valid claims out of fear they may have to pay additional fees beyond those covered by statute.