As I’m reading this, the plaintiff might be ordered to pay fees, merely because his complaint resulted in a ruling of qualified immunity.

This seems like it would have a hugely chilling effect on lawsuits about civil rights.

For instance, in SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT #1 ET AL. v. REDDING, the supreme court ruled that it’s a civil rights violation for school administrators to strip-search a 13 year old merely because they suspect her of possessing a tablet of aspirin.

However, they also ruled that the administrators actions were covered by qualified immunity. Surely, awarding costs to the plaintiff would be unreasonable in a case such as this.

Is there something that made the suit against Mr. Corbett particularly frivolous or otherwise merits putting costs onto the plaintiff?

Yes, he’s immune, but what is the justification for him shifting his legal bills to Farnan and ‘Advocates for Faith & Freedom’?

I can see it if Farnan and his lawyers were found to be willfully bringing a nuisance suit (as Farnam’s lawyers should be aware if that was the case) instead of other paths such as arbitration. Then, nail the lawyers and Farnam for wasting the court’s time in an effort to abuse the defendant and his counsel.

With that all said, I admit that I don’t know enough of the details of the case. From what little I’ve heard, what Corbett did was not serious enough to warrant a court case though it was (?) out of line if he repeatedly went back to the issue. That said, creationism is defensibly exactly as Corbett stated; “superstitious nonsense”, though in a class the teacher should use a more scholarly approach to any issue even if the conclusion when facts are presented may be as clear as simply stating that an idea is “superstitious nonsense”.