In White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a request for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988 does not constitute a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and therefore is not subject to its ten-day filing limit. The case arose when Mrs. White filed suit against her employer, alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII and seeking backpay as well as other relief including attorney’s fees. After winning her case but failing to receive an award for legal costs, she submitted a post-judgment motion requesting these fees outside the ten-day window stipulated by Rule 59(e). The District Court denied this on grounds it was untimely; however, upon appeal, SCOTUS reversed this decision stating that such requests can be made independently from motions altering judgments.

In the dissenting opinion for White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security et al., Justice William J. Brennan Jr., joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun, argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with federal rules of civil procedure and prior Supreme Court precedent. They contended that a motion to alter or amend a judgment should not be treated as a request for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). Instead, they believed it should be considered as an independent action in equity seeking relief from the effects of a judgment on grounds external to the original proceedings. The dissenters also expressed concern about potential abuse if litigants could easily circumvent time limits set by rules governing post-trial motions simply by relabeling their requests for reconsideration as Rule 60(b) motions. They feared this would undermine finality in litigation and burden courts with unnecessary additional proceedings.