The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

National injunctions and equitable mootness

The Ninth Circuit orders briefing on whether one national injunction moots another

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

As Howard Wasserman notes, in an intriguing post at PrawfsBlawg, a panel of the Ninth Circuit has ordered briefing on whether one national injunction renders the appeal of another one moot. It's remarkable that this is a novel question—it's another reminder of how recent the widespread use of national injunctions really is.

The one point I want to add right now to Howard's post is about the distinction between Article III mootness and what is sometimes called "equitable mootness." This doctrine is discussed in my article The System of Equitable Remedies.

I list a number of doctrines and habits associated with equitable remedies, including: "A claim for equitable relief is subject to a stricter ripeness requirement" (545). "Equitable ripeness," I note, "is required only for equitable ripeness" (549). The supporting footnote is as follows:

The equitable ripeness doctrine tends to be stated more crisply in the secondary sources. See Samuel L. Bray, The Myth of the Mild Declaratory Judgment, 63 DUKE L.J. 1091, 1133-37, 1140-43 (2014); Laura E. Little, It's About Time: Unravelling Standing and Equitable Ripeness, 41 BUFF. L. REV. 933, 977-80 (1993); Gene R. Shreve, Federal Injunctions and the Public Interest, 51 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 382, 390-92 (1983). But see LAYCOCK, supra note 38, at 585-86. Even so, the case law also shows a greater concern about ripeness and other justiciability doctrines when courts are asked to give equitable remedies. See, e.g., City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103, 105, 109, 111-13 (1983) (treating equitable requirements as more strict than the general case-or-controversy requirement); O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 499 (1974) (same); United States v. Regenerative Scis., LLC, 741 F.3d 1314, 1325 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (requiring for injunction "a reasonable likelihood of further violations in the future"); Hodgers-Durgin v. De la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037, 1042 & n.3 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (W. Fletcher, J.) (concluding that although plaintiff class may have had Article III standing, they failed to show the "likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury" required for equitable relief); Beck v. Test Masters Educ. Servs. Inc., 994 F. Supp. 2d 98, 101 (D.D.C. 2014) ("The claimed injury must be both certain and great and of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for equitable relief to prevent irreparable harm.") (emphasis in original); LJL 33rd St. Assocs., LLC v. Pitcairn Props., Inc., No. 13 CIV. 5673 (JSR), 2013 WL 5969139, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2013) (holding that declaratory judgment claim was ripe though specific performance claim was not); Town of Monroe v. Renz, 698 A.2d 328, 333 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997) ("The extraordinary nature of injunctive relief requires that the harm complained of is occurring or will occur if the injunction is not granted."); Howe v. Greenleaf, 320 P.3d 641, 652 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (requiring for injunction that "the conduct to be enjoined is probable or threatened") (alterations and citation omitted); 67A N.Y. JUR. § 167 (2d ed. 2000) (requiring for injunction a "violation of a right presently occurring, or threatened and imminent"). It is harder to distinguish ripeness and equitable ripeness for equitable restitutionary remedies, but there, too, the courts seem wary of speculative claims. See Bank of Am. v. Bank of Salem, 48 So. 3d 155, 158 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010) ("[A]llegations, which pertained only to promises of future conduct, are insufficient evidence of fraud to warrant a constructive trust."); Nw. Props. Brokers Network, Inc. v. Early Dawn Estates Homeowner's Ass'n, 295 P.3d 314, 325 n.7 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (rejecting unjust-enrichment counterclaim as unripe).

Later in the article, when discussing the constraints on equitable remedies, I have this passage (578-579, some footnotes omitted):

Given the greater cost and greater potential for abuse, the equitable remedies and equitable enforcement mechanisms need limits. These limits, even if not sharply defined, give a sense of shape to a plaintiff's expectation of equitable relief. These "equitable constraints" are crucial to understanding equity:

  1. Equitable Ripeness. There is a requirement of additional factual development for equitable remedies, which is represented by the equitable ripeness doctrine. There is obvious overlap here with constitutional doctrines of ripeness and standing, as well as abstention doctrines. The relationship between the constitutional doctrines and their equitable counterparts cannot be untangled here. It suffices to say that they overlap, and yet that a court may invoke equitable ripeness as an independent reason not to give equitable relief.251 Indeed, cases about constitutional standing, ripeness, or abstention often emphasize the plaintiff's request for equitable relief, and many of those cases have suggested that these doctrines apply differently depending on whether legal or equitable relief is sought.252 Nor is this concern misplaced. Ripeness is especially important for equitable remedies because they can depend on facts that are changing and contingent, and can entangle the courts in the relationship of the parties, not just at the moment of decision but (at least potentially) on a continuing basis. Not only ripeness, but other justiciability doctrines, such as mootness, are also sometimes said to be more exacting for claims for equitable remedies.254

Among the supporting footnotes are the following:

251      For analysis related to the injunction and declaratory judgment, see Bray, supra note 85. The courts' more exacting review of the ripeness of equitable claims may take place under other doctrinal headings, such as irreparable injury, equitable discretion, and lack of propensity. E.g., In re DDAVP Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litig., 903 F. Supp. 2d 198, 209-11 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (finding a failure to state a claim for injunctive relief).

252      See Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996); City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111-13 (1983); O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 499 (1974); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943); R.R. Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 500-01 (1941). For discussion, see Anthony J. Bellia Jr., Article III and the Cause of Action, 89 IOWA L. REV. 777, 827, 827 n.216 (2004) (standing); Bray, supra note 85, at 1146 n.247 (ripeness); Louis Henkin, Is There a "Political Question" Doctrine?, 85 YALE L.J. 597, 617-22 (1976) (political question); see also Lochlan F. Shelfer, Note, Special Juries in the Supreme Court, 123 YALE L.J. 208, 234 (2013) ("Because the overwhelming majority of cases in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction sound in equity, the Court often refuses petitions on the equitable basis of alternative fora.") (footnote omitted). For more skeptical views, see Martha A. Field, Abstention in Constitutional Cases: The Scope of the Pullman Abstention Doctrine, 122 U. PA. L. REV. 1071, 1138-43, 1139 n.177 (1974); Laycock, supra note 2, at 75; Martin H. Redish, Abstention, Separation of Powers, and the Limits of the Judicial Function, 94 YALE L.J. 71, 84-90 (1984).

254      See FTC v. Accusearch Inc., 570 F.3d 1187, 1201 (10th Cir. 2009) ("When, as in this case, a defendant has ceased offending conduct, the party seeking injunctive relief must demonstrate to the court 'that there exists some cognizable danger of recurrent violation, something more than the mere possibility which serves to keep the case alive."') (quoting United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953)); Getty Images, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 61 F. Supp. 3d 296, 300 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ("[T]he standard for establishing the need for injunctive relief is more stringent than the mootness standard."); see also Pires v. Bowery Presents, LLC, 988 N.Y.S.2d 467, 472 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014).

Finally, when discussing how different equitable rules, habits, and maxims help judges avoid the problems inherent in equitable remedies, I have this passage (584-585, footnotes omitted):

None of these equitable constraints is rigid . None is airtight. All are discretionary, and the discretion to invoke them is committed to the very judge they are intended to constrain—the judge deciding in the first instance whether to give an equitable remedy. This may cause some to deny that they are actually constraints. Surely they would not work for a judge who was intent on abuse of power. But not all constraints are fetters. These equitable constraints guide the responsible exercise of judicial power, both at the trial and appellate levels, by focusing a judge's attention on certain situations where equitable remedies and enforcement mechanisms are most likely to be misused.

For example, one scenario in which judges are more likely to misuse their equitable powers is when they act with insufficient information, not just for generic reasons that might apply to every claim, but for reasons specific to equitable remedies. The commands inherent in equitable remedies are more likely to be factually involved and contingent because they need to be designed not only for present circumstances but also for future ones. The attention of judges is directed to this concern about factual development by the doctrine of equitable ripeness.