Document: 544 U.S. 734 TORY ET AL.v.COCHRAN No. 03-1488. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 22, 2005. Decided May 31, In a state-law defamation action filed by attorney Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., California trial court found that petitioner Tory, assisted Craft and others, had, inter alia, falsely claimed Cochran owed him money, picketed Cochran's office with signs containing insults obscenities, pursued while chanting similar threats insults, in order to coerce into paying Tory money desist from such libelous slanderous activity. Because indicated he would continue engage the activity absent order, permanently enjoined petitioners their agents from, among other things, picketing, displaying signs, making oral statements about his firm any public forum. The Appeal affirmed, this granted certiorari. After argument, counsel informed death, moved substitute widow as respondent, suggested case be dismissed moot. Petitioners agreed substitution, but denied was Held: is substituted not Despite injunction remains effect. Nothing its language says contrary. argues still necessary, valid, enforceable, no source law it automatically became invalid upon death. As understands law, person cannot definitively know whether an legally void until has ruled is. Given uncertainty, here continues significantly restrain petitioners' speech, thus presenting ongoing federal controversy. however, makes unnecessary for explore basic claims. Rather, need only point out injunction, written, lost underlying rationale. Since picketing offices engaging injunction-forbidden speech could longer pay desisting activity, grounds are much diminished or have disappeared altogether. Consequently amounts overly broad prior restraint lacking plausible justification. Pp. 736-739. Vacated remanded. BREYER, J., delivered opinion Court, which REHNQUIST, C. STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. THOMAS, dissenting opinion, SCALIA, joined, post, p. 739. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT. Erwin Chemerinsky argued cause petitioners. With on briefs were Gary Bostwick Jean-Paul Jassy. Jonathan B. Cole respondent. brief Karen K. Coffin Susan S. Baker.* JUSTICE BREYER Court. 1 brought against Ulysses Tory. state determined (with help Ruth others) had engaged unlawful defamatory It found, example, claiming complained local bar association, written threatening letters demanding $10 million, holding up various obscenities; and, group associates, insults. App. 38, 40-41. concluded Tory's claim without foundation, continuous pattern used false "coerce" "amounts entitled" "tribute" "premium" "desisting" Id., at 39, 42-43. 2 noting absence Superior issued permanent injunction. prohibited Craft, "agents" "representatives" "picketing," "displaying placards printed material," "orally uttering statements" "any forum." 34. 3 appealed. affirmed. then petition writ certiorari, raising following question: 4 "Whether remedy action, preventing all future admitted figure, violates First Amendment." Pet. Cert. i. 5 recent Counsel also widow, Sylvia Dale Mason we dismiss response agreeing substitution Ms. Cochran. But they 6 We agree tells us does recognize "cause injury memory deceased person's reputation," see Kelly v. Johnson Pub. Co., 160 Cal. 2d 718, 325 P. 659 (1958), circumstance, believes, "moots" "portion" (the portion "personal Cochran"). Respondent's Suggestion Death, etc., (emphasis added). adds "[t]he [i]njunction valid enforceable." 9. parties identified, nor becomes even personal points "value of" "law practice" interest enforcing 11-12. And, understand See States Fidelity & Guaranty 60 Cal.App.2d 587, 591, 141 475, 477-478 (1943) ("[W]here party served believes" "invalid should take proper steps dissolved"); People Gonzalez, 12 4th 804, 818, 910 1366, 1375 (1996) ("[A] subject court's may elect challenge constitutional validity when issued, reserve violation charged contempt court"). uncertainty given See, e. g., Dombrowski Pfister, 380 U. 479, 486-487 (1965); NAACP Button, 371 415, 432-433 (1963). Consequently, not, do Cf. Firefighters Stotts, 467 561, 569 (1984) (case moot part because appears "terms" "still force" "unless set aside must complied with"). 7 At same time, death unnecessary, indeed unwarranted, claims, namely, (1) Amendment forbids issuance case, least plaintiff (2) (considered death) properly tailored consequently violated Amendment. Brief ii, iii. now achieve objectives mind (i. e., coercing activity), diminished, if Nebraska Press Assn. Stuart, 427 539, 559 (1976) ("[P]rior restraints publication most serious tolerable infringement rights"); Pittsburgh Co. Comm'n Human Relations, 413 376, 390 (1973) (a "swee[p]" "more broadly than necessary"). such, Constitution it. Carroll President Comm'rs Princess Anne, 393 175, 183-184 (1968) (An "order" "the area rights" "precis[e]" narrowly "tailored" "pin-pointed objective" "needs case"); Board Airport Los Angeles Jews Jesus, Inc., 482 569, 575, 577 (1987) (regulation prohibiting "all `First activities'" substantially overbroad). 8 grant motion vacate judgment Appeal, remand proceedings inconsistent opinion. If, supplemental suggests, injunctive relief warranted, appropriate free ask relief. express view new relief, these changed circumstances, entered. 9 so ordered. Notes: * Briefs ofamici curiae urging reversal American Federation Labor Congress Industrial Organizations Hiatt, James Coppess, Laurence Gold; Thomas Jefferson Center Protection Free Expression Robert M. O'Neil J. Joshua Wheeler; Alfred Brophy et al. Michael I. Meyerson, pro se; Michelangelo Delfino Jon Eisenberg Jeremy Rosen. Kelli Sager, Jeffrey Fisher, Jerry Birenz, Richard A. Bernstein, Bloom, Harold W. Fuson, Kelley, Steven D. Zansberg, Eve Burton, R. Donnellan, Karlene Goller, George Freeman, Lucy Dalglish, Eric N. Lieberman Times Communications LLC amici curiae. 10 whom SCALIA joins, dissenting. 11 I certiorari improvidently granted. writ, notes, decide "[w]hether i; ante, 736. 13 Whether moots certainly renders inappropriate vehicle resolving question presented. recognizes this, 737-738, nevertheless vacates below, 738. after deciding, exercise jurisdiction, light Ante, 736-737; ASARCO Inc. Kadish, 490 605, 621, n. (1989) (when coming moot, "lack[s] jurisdiction power disturb judgment"); City News Novelty, Waukesha, 531 278, 283-284 (2001). 14 deciding threshold mootness issue, complicated problem own right, strains reach circumstances neither reason took important question, merely matter case-specific error correction. remain seek both courts. invalid, obey it: "collateral bar" rule, permits collateral challenges injunctions proceedings. . courts can resolve affairs, might very well adjudge rather rushes embrace. prudential matter, better course avoid passing unnecessarily question. Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 345-348 (1936) (Brandeis, concurring). 15 purports save possible enforcement thereby prevent chill rights, vacating below. what gives left hand takes invites further litigation pronouncing "injunctive warranted," conceding relief," "express[ing] relief." 738-739. What means party" unclear. Perhaps who taken place suit. Or perhaps firm, never been (if "appropriate") intervene attempt enjoin now-deceased third party. Court's decision doubts seeks avoid. Its potentially self-defeating. more prudent respectfully dissent.

Category: 2