Opinion ID: 684083
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Provision for Dissenter's Complaints

Text: 24 Appellants contend that the district court erred in refusing to include in the judgment a mechanism for objecting students to challenge NYPIRG's reports. To ensure NYPIRG's compliance with this Court's mandate, the judgment specifically requires the president of SUNY Albany to review NYPIRG's reports and certify its compliance. As we recognized in Carroll I, the university president's determinations are entitled to considerable deference, 957 F.2d at 999, and, regardless of the position taken by the SUNY Albany defendants-appellees in this litigation, we have no reason to doubt that the university's president will faithfully comply with the terms of the final judgment. This case is therefore unlike Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292, 308, 106 S.Ct. 1066, 1076-77, 89 L.Ed.2d 232 (1986), where the most conspicuous feature of the [challenged funding] procedure is that from start to finish it is entirely controlled by the union, which is an interested party, since it is the recipient of the agency fees paid by the dissenting employees. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion by refusing the more intrusive relief requested by appellants.