Opinion ID: 339404
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 3 As a preliminary matter, we consider whether we have jurisdiction of a petition for an extraordinary writ directed to a three-judge district court. MTM, Inc. v. Baxley, 1975, 420 U.S. 799, 95 S.Ct. 1278, 43 L.Ed.2d 636, implies that we do. There a three-judge court had dismissed the plaintiffs' civil rights action without reaching the constitutional issues which had required its formation, relying instead upon the inappropriateness of federal intervention while parallel state proceedings were pending. General Corp. v. Sweeton, N.D.Ala., 1973, 365 F.Supp. 1182, appeal dismissed sub nom. MTM, Inc. v. Baxley, supra. The plaintiffs took a direct appeal to the Supreme Court as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1253. In declaring that it lacked jurisdiction, the Court said: 4 (W)e conclude that a direct appeal will lie to this Court under § 1253 from the order of a three-judge federal court denying interlocutory or permanent injunctive relief only where such order rests upon resolution of the merits of the constitutional claim presented below. 5 Id. at 804, 95 S.Ct. at 1281. 6 We take this to mean, by implication, that we have jurisdiction over appeals from appealable orders of three-judge district courts that do not resolve the merits of the constitutional claim presented. Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union, 1974, 419 U.S. 90, 99-101, 95 S.Ct. 289, 42 L.Ed.2d 249; Valentino v. Howlett, 7 Cir., 1976, 528 F.2d 975, 977-78; First American Bank & Trust Co. v. Ellwein, 8 Cir., 1975, 520 F.2d 1309, 1310 n.1, cert. denied, 1976, 423 U.S. 1055, 96 S.Ct. 788, 46 L.Ed.2d 645; cf. Wernick v. Matthews, 5 Cir. 1975, 524 F.2d 543, 547. We apply the same principle where petitioners seek an extraordinary writ, because § 1651 empowers us to issue such a writ in aid of our appellate jurisdiction. 7