Document: 414 U.S. 473 94 S.Ct. 713 38 L.Ed.2d 661 Wilbur SCHMIDT, Director of Wisconsin Department Health and Social Services, et al.v.Alberta LESSARD No. 73—568. Jan. 14, 1974. PER CURIAM. 1 In October November 1971, appellee Alberta Lessard was subjected to a period involuntary commitment under the State Mental Act, wis.Stat. § 51.001 seq. While in confinement, she filed this suit United States District Court for Eastern Wisconsin, on behalf herself all other persons 18 years age or older who were being held involuntarily pursuant involuntary-commitment laws, alleging that statutory scheme violative Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Jurisdiction predicated 28 U.S.C. 1343(3) 42 1983. Since both declaratory injunctive relief sought, three judges convened, 2281. 2 After hearing argument receiving briefs, comprehensive opinion, declaring unconstitutional. 349 F.Supp. 1078. The opinion concluded by stating 3 'Alberta members her class are entitled against further enforcement present them. . (Miss is also an injunction any extensions invalid order which continues make subject jurisdiction hospital authorities.' Id., at 1103. 4 Over nine months later, entered judgment, simply stated 5 'It Ordered Adjudged judgment be hereby accordance with Opinion heretoforce ..' 6 defendants-appellants now seek invoke appellate Court, 1253. That statute provides 7 'Except as otherwise provided law, party may appeal Supreme from granting denying, after notice hearing, interlocutory permanent civil action, proceeding required Act Congress heard determined district court judges.' 8 response, has motion dismiss want jurisdiction. Relying upon Court's decision Gunn v. University Committee End War, 399 383, 90 2013, 26 684 claims did not constitute 'an denying' injunction. 9 Gunn, three-judge had found Texas breach peace There, here, plaintiffs 'are relief.' War 289 469, 475 (W.D.Tex.). however, no kind; concluding paragraph only mention relief. Thus, we lacked hear 1253, because total absence 'granting 10 Although language here parallels there thus important distinction between two cases. record devoid relief, case 'in Opinion.' its own terms authorizes appellee, believe sufficient our 11 Yet, although jurisdiction, wholly inadequate foundation premise plenary judicial review. Rule 65(d) Federal Rules Civil Procedure provides, relevant part: 12 'Every every restraining shall set forth reasons issuance; specific terms; describe reasonable detail, reference complaint document, act acts sought restrained falls far short satisfying second third clauses 65(d). Neither brief nor accompanying 'specific' outlining 'terms' granted; can it said describes detail restrained.' Rather, defendants told enforce 'the scheme' those appellee's class. 13 As have emphasized past, specificity provisions mere technical requirements. designed prevent uncertainty confusion part faced orders, avoid possible founding contempt citation decree too vague understood. International Longshoremen's Assn. Philadelphia Marine Trade Assn., 389 64, 74—76, 88 201, 206—208, 19 236; supra, 388—389. See generally J. Moore, Practice 65.11; C. Wright & A. Miller, 2955.1 prohibits conduct threat punishment, basic fairness requires enjoined receive explicit precisely what outlawed.2 14 requirement orders performs function. Unless trial carefully frames impossible tribunal know reviewing. 388, 2016. We hardly begin assess correctness without knowing precise bounds. informed intelligent review greatly complicated, if made impossible. 15 Hence, below plainly does satisfy requirements Accordingly, vacate remand proceedings consistent opinion. 16 Vacated remanded. 17 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS dissents. suggests good deal been engendered order. About six action entered, submitted memorandum numerous instances 'noncompliance' requesting affirmative No taken request, and, July 18, 1973, appellants joined 'Motion Reconvene Clarification outlined followed original asked 'clarify' holdings. joint motion, perhaps subsequent filing appeal. 'The power potent weapon. When founded understood, deadly one. responded danger requiring federal frame so must obey them will intends require means forbid.' 76, 208.

Category: 8