FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APR 22, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 16 60 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 7 5- 00 66 6- CV-S-S BIRM INGHAM FIRE FI GHTERS ASSOCIATION 1 17 , W ILKS CLASS, etal.,
Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es , ve rs us CITY OF BIR MINGHAM, AL, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re BLACK, MAR CUS an d HIGGINB OTHAM, Cir cu itJu dg es . * BLACK, Ci rcu itJu dg e:
Honora ble Patrick E. Hig g inbotham, United States Circuit J udg e for the Fif th Circuit, * sitti ngby designation.Fo ll owi ng de cad es of c iv il -ri gh ts li ti ga ti on reg ard in g d is cri m in at ory

em pl oym en t p ract ic es , th e d is tri ctco urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a as su m eda di rectsupe rv is ory rol e o ve r th e Per so nn el Bo ardof J effe rs on Co un ty in 20 02 . Inc id en t t o i ts supe rv is ory fun ct io n, t he di stric t co urt ap po in te d t wo in di vi du al s t o t he th ree- m em be r Bo ardwhen va can ci es aro se in 20 07 . Sho rtl y th erea fte r, th e Alaba m a le gi sl atur e p as se d Act40 8, wh ic h e nt ire ly recon st itut ed th e co m po si ti on of t he Bo ard . In Se pt em be r 20 08 , th e d is tri ctco urt d ecl aredAct 40 8 v oi d ab in it io an d a ffi rm edth atth e co urt-app oi nt edm em be rs wou ldserve th e rem ai nd er o f th ei r te rm s. Th e Ci ty of Bi rm in gh am no w app eal s t hi s d eci si on . Thi s C ou rt h ol ds th atitdo es no t h av e juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er thi s m at te r be cau se th e ap pe al edord er, an in te rlo cu to ry in jun ct io n, h as si nc e m erg edwith a
subs eque ntfin al ord er tha t n ei th er p art y ch al le ng es . The Ci ty’ s ap pe al is th eref or e di sm is se d. I. BACKGROUND Inth e 1 97 0s , th e Uni te d S ta te s, t he NAACP, anda cl as s o f Afri can Am eri canm

un ic ip al em

pl oyees (t he Mart inCla ss ) br ou gh t ci vi l ri gh ts laws ui ts ag ai ns t t he Cit y

of B irming ha m

(th e Ci ty), the Pers on ne l Bo ardof J effe rs on

2Co un ty (the Bo ard ), an d s ev eral ot he r st at e act or s an d m un ic ip al it ie s. The

1 pl ai nt iff s al le ge d t ha t t he de fen da nt s en ga ge d i n ra ci al ly andsex ua ll y di sc riminat ory

em pl oym en t p ract ic es in vi ol at io n o f th e Fo urte en th Am en dm en t, Tit le VII of

th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , and42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1, am on g o th er pr ov is io ns . In 1 97 6, t he fir stcla im s wen t t o t ria l, an d the di st ric t co urt ru le d i n fav orof t he pl ai nt iff

s, fi nd in g t ha t t he Pers on ne l Bo ard ’s fire fig ht er an d p ol ic eof fic er en tra nc e ex am in at io ns im pe rm is si bl y

di sc riminat edag ai ns t Afri can Am eri can s. A sec on d s etof c la im s ch al le ng in g a dd it io na l en tra nc e ex am in at io ns an d ot he r hi rin g p ract ic es wentto tri al sh ortl y th erea fte r. Bu t, b efo re the di st ric t co urt
reac he d ave rd ic t, the pa rti es en te redin to co m pr eh en si ve co ns en t d ecre es de si gn ed
Over the dec ades, this Court has bec ome quite familiar with the liti g ation involving the 1 City of B irmingha

m and the Personne l Boa

rd of Jeffe rson County . As a re sult, thi s Court has had multipl e opportunities to compre hensively set out the ca se’s proc edura l and fa ctual bac kg round, eac h time addingthe latest cha pter to the na

rrative. This opinion thus only briefly rec ounts the conflict’s g enesis; for a

far more de tailed explanation of the ea rly year s of this lit iga

tion, see Ensley Branc h, NAACP v. Seibels , 31 F.3d 1548, 1553–63 ( 11th Cir. 1994). The pre sent opinion picks up the story

in more deta il where J udg e Carne s left off in 1994, e x plaining how the controve rsy

that started in the 1970s ha s continued into the second de cade of the ne w millennium. As Dist rict Judge Smith observed in his September 2008 opinion, the c ase’ s thirty
year tenure in the fede ral-c ourt sy stem has solidified its Dickensian natur e. See U nited States v. Jefferson County, Ala. , No. 2:75-cv- 666 at 11 (N.D . Ala. Sept. 12, 2008) (me m. op. gr anting interlocutory

injunction) (Smith, J .); see also C H A R L E S D I C K E N S , B L E A K H O U S E 4–5 (Pollard & Moss 1884) (“[The c ase] drones on. This . . . suit has, in course of time, bec ome so complicate d that no man alive knows what it means. . . . Innumera ble childre n have be en born into the c ause; innumerable youngpeople ha ve mar ried into it; innum era

ble old people have died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously

found themselves ma de par ties . . . without knowing how or why . . . . [I t] still drag s its dreary leng th before the cour

t . . . .”). 3to de ve lo p a ndim pl em en t co ns ti tu ti on al , no nd is cri m in at ory em pl oym en t p ract ic es . The se in it ia l d ecre es , fin al iz edin 19 81 , in cl ud edsev eral ge nd er- a ndrace co ns ci ou s p ro vi si on s, i nc lu di ng hi rin g andpro m ot io na l quo ta s. Th e im pl em en ta ti on of t he se 19 81 Co ns en t Dec rees in tu rnpro m pt edciv il -ri gh ts la wsu it s t hr ou gh ou t t he 19 80 s. In th is res ul ti ng li ti ga ti on , sev eral no n- bl ackm al e li ti ga nt s co ll at eral ly chal le ng edth e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of t he ne w gen de r- an d ra ceba se d quo ta s, al le gi ng th e d ecre es am ou nt edto rev ers e d is cri m in at io n. In19 90 , a cla ss rep res en ti ng th es e n on -b la ckm al e em pl oyees (the W il ks Cl as s) in te rv en edin th e p res en t l it ig at io n and , alo ng with t he Uni te d S ta te s,
m ov edth e co urt t o m od ify the 19 81 Co ns en t Dec rees to ad dr es s the all eg ed ly
un co ns ti tu ti on al em

pl oym en t quo ta s. As a res ul t, i n 1 99 1, the di st ric t co urt
or de redth e Ci ty to ce as e rel y in g o n a nn ua l quo ta s as so on as i t ei th er re ach edit s lo ng -te rm di ve rs it y go al s o r de ve lo pe d n on di sc riminat ory scr een in g p ro cedur es . Si m il arl y , th e co urt o rd eredth e Bo ardto ceas e u si ng qu ot as when itde ve lo pe d
no nd is cri m in at ory

em pl oym en t ex am in at io ns . Unt il th os e g oa ls were ac hi ev ed , ho wev er, b ot h t he Cit y

an d the Bo ardwere t o c on ti nu e to rel y on em pl oym en t an d pr om ot io na l p ract ic es th atgra nt edpre fere nt ia l t reat m en t t o Afr ic an -Am eri can s an d wo m en . The Wilk s C la ss an d t he Uni te d S ta te s t he n app eal edth is di st ric tco urt o rd er t o t he Elev en th Cir cu it
. 4In19 94 , th is Co urt h el d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt’s 1 99 1 m od ifi cat io n o f th e

19 81 Co ns en t Dec rees co ul d n otwiths ta ndco ns ti tu ti on al st ric t-s cru ti ny anal y si s, gi ve n t he de cree s’ us e o f ex pl ic itraci al an d g en de r qu ot as to ach ie ve im pe rm is si bl y

in fle xi bl e lo ng -te rm

go al s. Acco rd in gl y , th is Co urt re ve rs edth e 19 91 ord er i n re le va ntpa rt andm an da te d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt s ub st an ti al ly revi se th e 1 98 1 C on se ntDecree s. Th is Co urt, h owe ve r, di d n otm erel y rem an d t he cas e fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs ; ra th er, i t t oo k t he op po rtu ni ty to re pr im an d t he Bo ardfor
a co ns is te ntfai lu re t o t ak e se rio us ly the tas k o f de ve lo pi ng co ns ti tu ti on al ly pe rm is si bl e p ol ic ie s. To th aten d, t hi s C ou rt b em oa ne d t he “ cas ua l p ace t he Bo ard ha s p as se d o ff as pro gr es s fo r th irt een y ears ,” an d e m ph as iz edth atth e co ns en t de cree s wer e n ot“ a se curit y bl an ke t t o b e cl un g t o, b uta ba dg e o f sh am e, a
m on um en t t o t he Bo ard ’s pas t an d p res en t fa il ur e to tre atall can di da te s i n afai r an d n on -d is cri m in at ory

m an ne r.” Ens le

y Bra nc h , 31 F.3dat 1 57 7– 78 . In t he ho pe s tha t t hi s s ha rp lan gu ag e wou ldpro vi de th e sp arkth e Bo ardha d l ack ed th ro ug ho utth e p rev io us de cad e, th is Co urt i ns tru ct edth e d is tri ctco urt t o “ se t pr om ptde ad li ne s fo r th e Ci ty andth e Bo ardto de ve lo p a ndim pl em en t v al idjob
se le ct io n p ro cedur es ,” an d c omm an de d t he pa rti es to co m pl y “ fo rth with.” Id
. at 15 75 , 15 77
.

5On re m an d, t he di st ric t co urt o rd eredth e Ci ty andth e Bo ardto de ve lo p a nd

in st itut e em

pl oym en t s el ect io n p ro cedur es th ateithe r “ ha ve no adve rs e im pa cton th e b as is of r ace o r se x” or a re “ job rel at ed
. . . an d c on si st en t wi th bu si ne ss ne ces si ty, in acco rd an ce wi thTit le VII.” Des pi te th is Co urt’s cl ear m an da te an d th e d is tri ctco urt’s re ne weddi rect iv es , th e Bo ardne ve rth el es s fa il edto tak e an y se rio us st ep s t owa rdco m pl ia nc e th ro ug ho utth e rem ai nd er o f th e 1 99 0s . As a
res ul t, the W il ks Cla ss fil eda m ot io n fo r ci vi l co nt em ptag ai ns t t he Bo ardin19 98
. The tu rnof t he m il le nn iu m bro ug hta vi go ro us bu t u lt im at el y un su cces sf

ul effo rt b y Ju dg e C. Lynwo odSm it h, J r., to res ol ve th e th enqu art er-c en tu ry -o ld li ti ga ti on . After n earl y

two y ears of t hi s re ne wedpu sh , Ju dg e Sm it h d et erm in ed th atth e Bo ardrem ai ne d re so lu te ly uni nt eres te d i n c oo pe rat in g; co ns eque nt ly, in 20 02 , he g ran te d t he W il ks an d the Mart in /B ry an t Cla ss es ’ joi ntm ot io n fo r ci vi l 2
co nt em pt . In i ts op in io n, t he di st ric t co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ th e Bo ardm em be rs fai le d t o app reh en d t he ir l eg al ob li ga ti on s, o r ta ke an y st ep s—m

uc h l es s
m ean in gf ul st ep s—to en su re co m

pl ia nc e.” As a re su ltof t he Bo ardm em be rs ’ 3
When the district court ce rtified the Wilks Cl ass of non-bla ck, male e mploy ees in 1990, 2 it also certifie d a cla ss repre sentingall Afric an-America n and all fe male employees. This ne w class, the B ryant Class, subsumed the previous Mar tin Cl ass of blac k employees a nd, as a r esult, has bec ome known as the Martin/Br yant Class. Duringthe contempt proc eeding s, the Boa rd cha irman, James J ohnson, testified that he 3 was not familiar with either the or igina l 1981 Consent Decr ee or the district court’s 1995 modification order . He a lso testified that he neither had re ad this Court’s 1994 Ensley Branc h 6de li nq ue nc y , th e d is tri ctco urt p la cedth e Per so nn el Bo ardin rece iv ers hi p, t he reb y

ve st in g t he Bo ard ’s po wer al m os t en ti rel y in a co urt-app oi nt edRece iv er. Inth e y ears th atfol lo wed , th e Rec ei ve r m ad e si gn ifi can t p ro gr es s t owa rd ach ie vi ng th is Co urt’s 1 99 4 Ens le y Bra nc h m an da te . As a res ul t o f th is su cces s, th e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth atitco ul d g radua ll y reduc e it s s up erv is ory

rol e b y in crem en ta ll y

sh ift in g t he rece iv er’s p owe r ba ckto a th ree- m em be r bo ard . This tra ns it io n was go ve rn edby the 20 04 Tran si ti onPla n, wh ic h p erm it te d t he Bo ardto reg ai n m an y

of i ts fun ct io ns an d d ire ct edth atth e d is tri ctco urt wo ul d u lt im at el y ex tri cat e it se lf f

ro m th e Bo ard ’s op erat io ns . Unt il th e tr an si ti on was c om pl et e, ho wev er, the co urt re ta in eda si gn ifi can t o ve rs ig htrol e, whi ch in cl ud edth e ab il it y to ap po in t b oa rdm em

be rs if n eces sary . 3 Whe n t wo Bo ard -m em

be r po si ti on s, i nc lu di ng th e ch ai rm an sh ip , bec am e va can t i n 2 00 7, t he di st ric t co urt ex erci se d i ts ap po in tm en t p owe r to fil l the decision, nor ha d he met with the other board me mbers to discuss its significa nce. Asecond board me mber, Te mple Tutwiler, likewise a cknowledg ed that he w as ignorant of the 1981 Consent Decr ee, the Ensley Branc h decision, and the 1995 modification order . The third boar d member, Robin B urre ll, a prac ticing attorney , testified that she ha d rea d Ensley Branc h more than once , but, when aske d “[d] o you rec all what that opinion said,” she r esponded, simply , “No.” Under

the B oard’ s enable ment statute, the Citiz ens Supervisory Commi ssion (CSC ), a 3 committee of va

rious community

leade rs, is tasked with appointingand conf irming B oard members. See EnablingAct of the Personnel B oard of J eff erson County , 1945 Ala. Ac ts 248 (as amende d). The 2004 T ransition Plan, however , rese rved this appointment power to the district court if the CSC was unable or unwilling to a ppoint qualified Boa

rd member s in a timely manner . 7va can ci es . In t he sp rin g, t he co urt ap po in te d Al fredF. Sm it h, J r., as c ha irman; i n

th e su m m er, i t ap po in te d An n D. Fl or ie as aBo ardm em be r. Sho rtl y

th erea fte r, an d p erh ap s i n re sp on se to th e d is tri ctco urt’s ap po in tm en ts , th e Alaba m a le gi sl atur e p as se d Act40 8, a s ta tu te th aten ti rel y reco ns ti tu te d t he co m

po si ti on of th e Bo ard . The Actin crea se d t he nu m be r of Bo ardm em

be rs fro m th ree t o s ev en , an d s pe ci fic al ly requ ire d tha t two o f th e se ve n s eat s b e fi ll edby A fri can Am eri can s. The Al ab am a g ov ern orsi gn edth e Actin to law i n M ay 20 08
. 4 Fo ll owi ng th e la w’ s en act m en t, the di st ric t co urt o rd eredth atth e th reem em be r Bo ardrem ai n i n p la ce fo r th irt y da y s t o a vo idth e o ut rig htco nf us io n t ha t

The bill rea ds: 4 Mem bership of the personnel board. The personne l board s h al l be comprised of seven members consisting of the following persons: The Chair of t h e C o u nty Commi ssion of J eff

erson County ; the mayor of the municipality having the g reatest number of employees in the classified service ; one member of the J eff erson County Mayors Association; an Alabama nonprofit corpor ation, not otherwise serving here under who is appointed by its gove rningbody ; two employ ees in the c lassified service , one of wh o m s h al l be Afric an Americ an not otherwise serving here under who shall be ele ct ed b y p opular vote of the perma nent employees in the classified service from a list of nom inations submitt ed to the di rec tor under the signatures of at least five employees in the classified service on or befor e September 30 of eac h year ; and two persons ap p o i nted by the presiding J udg e of Probate of J eff erson County , one of whom must reside in the Be ssemer judicial division and one of whom must reside in the Birm i n gh am judicial division, one of whom shall be Afric an Americ an and eac h of whom shall be qualified elec tors in the county , and neither of whom, nor any spouse or lineal desce ndant of a g randpa rent of such person or his or h er spouse, shall be a curr ent or former employee in the classified service or h av e held any public office of an a

ppointing author ity

at any time. 2008 Ala. Ac ts 408 (emphasis adde d). 8wou ldha ve res ul te d h adAct 4 08 tak enimm ed ia te effe ct . The fo ll owi ng week , th e

W il ks Cla ss , lat er joi ne d b y th e Bo ardit se lf, fi le d am ot io n c ha ll en gi ng th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y

of t he Act, ar gu in g t ha t t he race -b as edpro vi si on s v io la te d t he Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e, an d t ha t t he Act as a who le vi ol at edth e Supr em acy Cl au se . As a res ul t, o n J un e 3 , 20 08 , th e d is tri ctco urt d ire ct edth e th ree- m em be r Bo ardto co nt inue to serve un ti l t he co ns ti tu ti on al it y of t he Act co ul d b e fu ll y ad jud ic at ed , exp la in in g tha t “ itm ak es li tt le sen se forAct No . 20 08 -4 08 to be im pl em en te d wh il e it s co ns ti tu ti on al it y is in qu es ti on .” The Mart in/B ry an t Cl as s an d t he Cit y

th enres po nd edto th e Wilk s C la ss an d B oa rd ’s m ot io ns , andth e di st ric t co urt co ns id eredth e p art ie s’ con te nt io ns ov er the fol lo win g m on th s. By th e en d o f th e su m

m er, the di st ric t co urt h adreac he d ade ci si on an d was read y to rul e o n t he co ns ti tu ti on al it y of Ac t 4 08 . In Se pt em

be r 20 08 , th e d is tri ct
co urt en te redanord er (t he Sep te m be r Ord er) d ecl ari ng th e Act“ vo id ab in it io as vi ol at iv e o f th e Supr em acy Clau se of t he Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n.” The c ou rt th endi rect edth atth e “ th ree c urren t m em be rs of t he bo ardgo ve rn in g the fun ct io ns of th e Per so nn el Bo ardof J effe rs on Co un ty sha ll co nt in ue to serve un ti l the ir
res pe ct iv e te rm s ex pi re, o r un ti l t he y are o th erwi se rel ie ve d o f th ei r du ti es by fu rth er o rd er o f th is co urt.” Th e Ci ty of Bi rm in gh am ap pe al edfro m

th is Sep te m

be r

9Ord er, arg ui ng th atAct 4 08 di d n otvi ol at e th e Supr em acy Clau se , bu t ra th er

ad va nc edth e p ur

po se of t he pre vi ou s fe de ral -co urt o rd ers . Two m on th s l at er, wh il e th e Ci ty’ s ap pe al was p en di ng be fo re thi s C ou rt, th e d is tri ctco urt en te reda fi na l o rd er (t he Nov em be r Ord er) t ha t, af

te r m or e th an th ree d ecad es of c on fli ctan d l it ig at io n, fi na ll y term in at edth e Per so nn el Bo ard ’s
co ns en t d ecre e. The d is tri ctco urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t the Bo ardha d “ co m pl ie d wi th it s Co ns en t Dec ree i n g oo d fa ith,” ha d “ de m on strat eda go odfai th co m m it m en t t o co nt in ue d c om

pl ia nc e wit h fe de ral law,” a ndha d “ im pl em en te d p ol ic ie s, p ract ic es , an d p ro cedur es whi ch m ak e itun li ke ly tha t t he Bo ardwil l re pe atit s fo rm er vi ol at io ns . . ., m ak in g i t u nn eces sa ry forth is Co urt t o p ro vi de furth er jud ic ia l
supe rv is io n.” Altho ug h t he di st ric t co urt t erm in at edit s s up erv is ory fun ct io n, t he
co urt n ev ert he le ss di rect edth atth e two Bo ardm em be rs ap po in te d i n 2 00 7 a nd reaf firm edby the Sep te m

be r Ord er, “ sh al l s erv e th e rem ai nd ers of t he ir u ne xp ire d te rm s.” Th e d is tri ctco urt t he n c ert ifi edth is jud gm en t as a fi na l o rd er p ur su an t t o Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 4( b) , andno pa rty app eal ed
. II. DISCUSS ION Befo re co ns id eri ng th e m eri ts of t he Cit y ’s arg um en ts , th is Co urt m us t fi rs t
es tabl is h wh ethe r itha s ju ris di ct io n t o h ear t hi s ap pe al . Like all juri sd ic ti on al

10qu es ti on s, t he is su e is rev ie wedde no vo . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Lo pe z , 56 2 F .3d 13 09 , 13 11 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Init s Se pt em

be r Ord er, the di stric t co urt d et erm in edth atAct 4 08 was v oi d ab in it io an d t ha t i t t he refo re d idno t af fectth e ap po in tm en ts of M r. Sm it h andMs
. Fl or ie to th e Bo ard . The co urt t he n o rd eredth atth os e two bo ardm em be rs wou ld
se rv e th e rem ai nd er o f th ei r si x- y ear t erm s. Th e Sep te m be r Ord er thu s m eet s t he cl as si c d efi ni ti on of an i nju nc ti on : i t was “ a cl ear a ndun de rs ta nd ab le di rect iv e fro m th e d is tri ctco urt, . . . enf or ceab le th ro ug h c on te m

ptpro ceed in gs , andit
. . . [g av e] som e o r al l o f th e subs ta nt iv e rel ie f so ug htin th e co m pl ai nt .” Se e Sie rr a Cl ub v. Van Antwer

p , 52 6 F .3d13 53 , 13 58 (11 thCir . 20 08 ). As a re su lt , th e di st ric t co urt’s o rd er co ns ti tu te d a n i nt erl oc ut ory in jun ct io n re ga rd in g t he Bo ard
m em be rs ’ ap po in tm en ts : i t was a no n- fin al ord er m an da ti ng th atMr. Sm it h a nd Ms . Flo rie wou ldco nt inue th ei r te rm s o f se rv ic e. Ord in ari ly, on ly fina l ju dg m en ts of adi st ric t co urt ar e ap pe al ab le to th e Uni te d S ta te s C ou rts of Ap pe al s, wh erea s i nt erl oc ut ory ord ers are n ot . Se e 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1 (“ The co urts of app eal s . . . sh al l h av e juri sd ic ti on of app eal s fr om al l fi na l d eci si on s o f th e d is tri ctco urts of the Uni te d S ta te s . . . .”). But , § 1 29 2 pr ov id es anex cep ti onto § 1 29 1’s fi na l-ju dg m en t ru le : § 12 92 pe rm it s t he fed eral ci rcu itco urts to he ar ap pe al s fr om “ [i]nt erl oc ut ory

ord ers of t he di stric t co urts of
11th e Uni te d S ta te s, . . . gra nt in g, co nt in ui ng , m od ifyin g, re fu si ng or d is so lv in g

in jun ct io ns . . . .” § 1 29 2( a)(1 ). Thu s, b ecau se th e Sep te m be r Ord er p ro vi de d in jun ct iv e rel ie f—t ha t i s, i t m an da te d t ha t t he Bo ardm em be rs co nt in ue to serve th ei r res pe ct iv e te rm s— § 1 29 2 i ni ti al ly gran te d t hi s C ou rt ju ris di ct io n o ve r th e Ci ty’ s ap pe al , des pi te th e fac t tha t t he Sep te m be r Ord er was no t a f

in al jud gm en t. In te rv en in g e ve nt s ca n a ffec t an ap pe ll at e co urt’s jur is di ct io n o ve r an in te rlo cu to ry

ap pe al , ho wev er. InNov em be r 20 08 , th e d is tri ctco urt i ss ue d a
subs eque ntord er d ecl ari ng th atth e Bo ardha d s at is fie d t he requi rem en ts of i ts
co ns en t d ecre e an d h adad equa te ly dem on st rat edit s co m m it m en t t o m ai nt ai ni ng co ns ti tu ti on al em

pl oym en t p ro cedur es . Thatjud gm en t al so reaf firm edth e Sep te m be r Ord er’s d ire ct iv e—t ha t i s, t he di st ric t co urt ag ai n d ecl aredth atMr. Sm ith a ndMs . Flo rie were t o s erv e th e rem ai nd er o f th ei r res pe ct iv e te rm s as Bo ardm em

be rs . This Nov em

be r Ord er, co nt ai ni ng th e v ery sa m e in jun ct iv e rel ie f
as di d t he Sep te m

be r Ord er, co ns ti tu te d afin al jud gm en t, as ev id en cedby the di st ric t co urt’s ce rti fy in g i t as su ch un de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 4( b)
. Thu s, wi th th e en try of the Nov em be r Ord er, the di st ric t co urt fi na li zedth e Sep te m be r in jun ct io n; itis th is cru ci al ch an ge in cir cu m st an ces th atul ti m at el y pr ev en ts th is Co urt fr om

he ari ng anap pe al fro m

th atin it ia l Se pt em

be r Ord er. In
es se nc e, th e Nov em

be r Ord er s tri pp edth is Co urt o f it s ju ris di ct io n o ve r th e Ci ty’ s

12ap pe al be cau se , when a fi na l i nju nc ti on in co rp or at es th e sa m e rel ie f as an

in te rlo cu to ry

in jun ct io n, an ap pe al is pro pe rly tak enon ly from th e fi na l o rd er. Se e Bur to n v . Geor

gi a , 95 3 F .2d12 66 , 12 72 n.9 (11 thCir . 19 92 ) (“ Onc e a fi na l jud gm en t i s re nd ered , th e ap pe al is pro pe rly tak enfro m th e fi na l ju dg m en t, n otth e pr el im in ary in

jun ct io n.” ); SEC

v. Fir st Fin . Gro up of

Tex. , 64 5 F .2d42 9, 4 33 (5t h Ci r. Uni t A Ma y

19 81 ) (“ Onc e an ord er o f pe rm an en t i nju nc ti on is en te red. . ., th e or de r of pre li m in ary in

jun ct io n i s m erg edwith i t, an d app eal is pro pe r on ly from th e o rd er o f pe rm an en t i njunc ti on .”). 5 As a re su ltof the Sep te m be r Ord er’s m erg er wi th th e fi na l No ve m be r Ord er, th is Co urt n o l on ge r ha s ju ris di ct io n t o h ear t he Cit y ’s app eal
. 6

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), this 5 Court adopted as bindingprec edent a ll decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of

business on September 30, 1981. This Court notes that even if the Septe mber Or der w ere interpre ted as a n interlocutory 6 decla ratory judgme nt reg ardingthe constitutionality of Ac t 408, rather

than as a n interlocutory injunction reg ardingthe appointed B oard me mbers, this Court would stil l lack jurisdiction to hear the City ’s appe al. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1292 applies only to interlocutory

injunctions; i t makes no exception to § 1291’s final judg ment rule whe n the conc erne d interlocutory order is decla ratory in nature. This Court also notes that the City has made no attempt to invoke appellate jurisdiction under § 1291. 13III. CONCLUSI ON

The Cit y ap pe al s an in te rlo cu to ry

in jun ct io n t ha t h as si nc e m erg edwith a fin al ord er. Bec au se a ch al le ng e is pro pe r on ly from th atfin al ord er, thi s ap pe al is di sm is se d fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n. DISMI SSED.

14