Structural Injunctions

1. Structural Injunctions • Defined – complex injunctions sought/issued in litigation against government defendants in lawsuits where Ps seek major institutional change for systemic violations of the law. Ps attempt to bring these institutions in line with constitutional or statutory requirements. • Characteristics • Involve issues of public/constitutional law • Complexity • Public’s interest is a significant factor in decision to grant/deny injunctions

2. Scope of Structural Injunctions • Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U.S. 1 (1971): • "[The Court’s] task is to correct . . . the condition that offends the Constitution. Judicial powers may be exercised on the basis of a constitutional violation. The nature of the constitutional violation determines the scope of the remedy.” • Milliken I uses similar language – “The controlling principle … is that the scope of the remedy is determined by the nature and extent of the constitutional violation.” • Raises 2 questions: • To what is P constitutionally entitled? • What remedy puts P in their rightful position? Answers to both leave a great deal to courts’ interpretations

3. Additional Issues w/ Structural Injunctions • Court’s issuing complex (and often very specific) injunctions governing institutions like prisons, schools… unavoidably perform a combination of judicial, legislative and administrative functions • Raises concerns about: • Federalism (when federal courts involved, which they usually are) • Separation of powers • Lack of expertise • Effect on budgets • How can judges deal with such concerns and still right constitutional/statutory wrongs?

4. Modifying Injunctions • Typically once a judgment is final (time for appeal has passed or appeals are finished) the issue is res judicata. • The case can’t be relitigated. • Obviously true for most remedies, including injunctions that contain a simple mandate/order. • E.g., “D must turn over the property.” • But with permanent injunctions that operate into the future (i.e., impose conditions or mandates that operate continuously or perpetually), parties subject to such injunctions may attempt to modify them without being precluded by res judicata arguments: • FRCP 60(b)(5) – On motion … the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final … order … [if] applying it prospectively is no longer equitable.

5. Standards for modifying permanent injunctions – nonstructural injunctions • For non-structural injunctions, the moving party’s burden for modifying the injunction is pretty high. Courts require that: • The party make a clear showing of substantial and unexpected change in circumstances from the time the original injunction issued that cause the injunction to operate unjustly. • Ass’n for Retarded Citizens v. North Dakota, 942 F.2d 1235 (8th Cir. 1991) • Change in circumstances can involve a change in facts or law (i.e., decisional or statutory law) • Courts like to see that these changed circumstances cause extreme & unexpected hardship so that the decree is oppressive • Changes make compliance substantially more onerous, or • Compliance proves to be unworkable due to changed circumstances • Unexpected/Unforeseen ≠ Unforeseeable

6. Modifying Injunctions – Structural Injunctions • Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail – SCT standard re when judges can modify structural injunctions/consent decrees: Party seeking modification must demonstrate a significant change in circumstances that warrants a revision of the decree • Essentially courts use the test from previous slide but apply it in favor of the gov’t (usually the moving party) • “This restrictive standard is lessened in institutional reform litigation … both because of the need to shape practical and flexible remedies, and because principles of federalism and comity require that a federal court’s regulatory control not extend beyond the time required to remedy the effects of the past constitutional violations.” Ass’n for Retarded Citizens, 942 F.2d at 1239. • Some specifics: • The proposed modification should not undermine the central purpose of the original order • But if there is NO continuing purpose for the injunction (i.e., no further constitutional violation) the Court should dissolve it as needed • Issues re burden of compliance or change in statutory/decisional law that UNDERMINES existing precedent are also reason to modify the injunction

7. Missouri state law re modifying injunctions • Missouri state courts essentially use a standard similar to the federal standard for modifying state injunctions: • [The party’s] argument to the effect that the trial court had no jurisdiction … to modify the [earlier] decree is bottomed on the general principle that a trial court loses control over judgments thirty days after entry. However, that [principle does] not obtain in the case of a permanent injunction which, as here, is based on a condition subject to change. • In such cases, courts must retain jurisdiction to vacate or modify the terms of the injunction in order to avoid unjust or absurd resultswhen a change occurs in the factual setting or the law which gave rise to its existence. • Twedell v. Town of Normandy, 581 SW2d 438 (Mo. App. 1979).

8. Substantive & Procedural Issues Regarding Injunctions - the Next Few Weeks • The requirement that plaintiff show irreparable injury before an injunction can issue • Other factors that courts consider when deciding whether to grant or deny an injunction • How do the substantive and procedural requirements for permanent and provisional (temporary/preliminary) relief differ?

9. The “Irreparable Injury” Requirement and Injunctive Relief (as noted in Pardee) • Common Law: A court will not grant equitable relief if P has an adequate remedy at law (i.e., unless P’s injury is irreparable). • An inadequate remedy at law is one where the threatened or damaged property cannot be substantially replaced with the damages that are its value. • Uniqueness is a common measure of inadequacy.

10. When is property “unique”? • Land • Animals? • Personal Property? • Wedding ring – family history v. mass produced? • Other mass produced goods? • What if it’s my daughter’s favorite toy?

11. Purpose of the irreparable injury rule: • Why do we require P to go to all this trouble to get an injunction? • Historical answer (Maitland excerpt): • Equity courts arose as a response to the failings of legal courts, which were allowed to hear only very narrow causes of action. It made sense at the time to require that a complainant exhaust legal remedies prior to resort to a court of equity • Modern Answers? • Injunctions are too burdensome on the court • Injunctions are too intrusive on D’s liberty • Because damages come after the harm they don’t involve speculative predictions • Injunctions deny defendant a right to a jury trial