Document: 451 U.S. 390 101 S.Ct. 1830 68 L.Ed.2d 175 UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS et al., Petitioners,v.Walter CAMENISCH. No. 80-317. Argued March 31, 1981. Decided April 29, Syllabus Respondent, a deaf graduate student at petitioner University, filed complaint in Federal District Court, alleging that the University had violated § 504 of Rehabilitation Act 1973 by discriminatorily refusing to pay for sign-language interpreter respondent, and declaratory injunctive relief was sought. Finding possibility respondent would be irreparably harmed absence an injunction he likely prevail on merits, inter alia, granted preliminary condition post security bond pending outcome litigation. The Court Appeals affirmed grant injunction. In meantime, obeyed paying respondent's been graduated, but rejected suggestion case moot, noting issue who should bear cost remained decided. Held: question whether have issued is moot because terms fully irrevocably carried out, but, as correctly noted, must remains trial merits. Pp. 393-398. (a) To suggest decisions courts below, extent they considered likelihood success merits granting injunction, were tantamount underlying thus preliminary-injunction not truly improperly equates "likelihood success" with "success" ignores significant procedural differences between permanent injunctions. P. 394. (b) Where federal district court has parties generally will benefit neither full opportunity present their cases nor final judicial decision based actual controversy. Thus, when aspects become appeal any preserved can resolved appeal, By contrast, where already even if otherwise determination correctness court's since saved from mootness bond. 395-398. 616 F.2d 127 (5th Cir.) vacated remanded. Lonny F. Zwiener, Austin, Tex., petitioners. Stephen J. Pollak, Washington, D. C., respondent. Peter Buscemi, United States, amicus curiae, special leave Court. Justice STEWART delivered opinion 1 On 1, 1978, Walter Camenisch, Texas, 1973, 87 Stat. 394, amended, 29 U.S.C. 794 (1976 ed., Supp. III), which provides "[n]o qualified handicapped individual States . shall, solely reason his handicap, excluded participation in, denied benefits of, or subjected discrimination under program activity receiving financial assistance." alleged received funds refused Camenisch. asked Western Texas "[p]reliminarily permanently order defendants appoint plaintiff while good standing defendant University." 2 applied "Fifth Circuit standard temporary see sought appropriate." That standard, enunciated Canal Authority Florida v. Callaway, 489 567 (1974), requires consider four factors deciding injunction: does issue; public interest served injunction; Camenisch finding substantial requiring Camenisch's interpreter, did so "post amount $3,000.00 this litigation pursuant Rule 65(c), R. C. P." also ordered action stayed "pending administrative relief, Plaintiff required initiate HEW requesting herein." 3 Fifth likewise test, found balance hardships weighed favor claim successful therefore 127. appellate ruled, however, obligated pursue remedy Department Health, Education, Welfare1 might provide, it part Court's staying action. 4 time acted, graduated. Appeals, moot. said: "[A] justiciable remains: whose responsibility interpreter?" Id., 130-131. We certiorari, 449 950, 352, 66 213, now raised before 5 held whole since, decided ultimately interpreter. However, rather abused its discretion issuing him. Brown Chote, 411 452, 457, 93 1732, 1735, 36 420; Alabama 279 229, 49 266, 73 L.Ed. 675. two issues are significantly different, depended listed Authority, depends resolution case. 6 This, then, simply another instance one alive other See, e. g., Powell McCormack, 395 486, 89 1944, 23 491. Ammond McGahn, 532 325 (C.A.3 1976), instance, became damages remained. "Though entire appropriateness If lack legally cognizable properly granted, sole us then we vacate remand consideration remaining issues." 328. Because only presently us—the injunction—is judgment remanded See supra. 7 Since suggested It may reasoning described conclusion "simply way stating traditional rule expired party bond." F.2d, 131. This fails, "success," what more important, 8 ] purpose merely preserve relative positions until held. Given limited purpose, given haste often necessary those preserved, customarily basis procedures less formal evidence complete than A prove hearing. Progress Development Corp. Mitchell, 286 222 (C.A.7 1961), findings fact conclusions law made binding Industrial Bank Washington Tobriner, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 51, 54, 405 1321, 1324 (1968); Hamilton Watch Co. Benrus Co., 206 738, 742 (C.A.2 1953). light these considerations, inappropriate stage give E. supra; Gellman Maryland, 538 603 (C.A.4 1976); Santiago Corporacion de Renovacion Urbana y Vivienda Puerto Rico, 453 (C.A.1 1972). 9 Should expedited appropriate, 65(a)(2) Rules Civil Procedure means securing one. permits "order advanced consolidated hearing application." Before such issue, commonly "the normally receive clear unambiguous notice [of intent consolidate hearing] either commences still afford respective cases." Pughsley 3750 Lake Shore Drive Cooperative Bldg., 463 1055, 1057 1972); Nationwide Amusements, Inc. Nattin, 452 651 1971). procedure followed here. 10 short, Thus Where, and, 11 principle basic distinction, although sometimes honored breach,2 reflected relevant precedents. For Liner Jafco, Inc., 375 301, 84 391, 347, cited proposition prevents becoming permanent, preliminary. there reached 12 American Bible Society Blount, 446 588 1971), illuminates distinction different angle. case, plaintiffs secured posted When "in all institute suit against sureties some future action, [would] faced same contention here." 594. ruled liability could arise defendant: "This consistent policy considerations behind requirement rooted belief deserves protection without deliberation offers." 595, n. 12. court, "full deliberation" take place. 13 Klein Califano, 586 250 1978), sitting en banc, confronted situation involving survived possible recoupment "recognize[d] rationale 65 protect consequences restraining orders dispute." 256. "had assess [had] summary injunction," ibid., case.3 14 replete circumstances indicating necessity nisi prius issued. proceedings here marks characteristic request relied short stipulation facts, legal theories seemed change level proceeding another. both ultimate factors. While true Appeals' language suggests win certainly hold standards met. 15 sum, modified out. Until taken place, intimate view lawsuit. 16 vacated, further opinion. 17 ordered. 18 Chief BURGER, concurring. 19 I join opinion, important emphasize several especially regulations. 20 undisputed stood willing permit classroom expense, allowed prior filing University's refusal meet established income criteria assistance students.* 21 course, read intimating claim. holds no that, trial, right support must, among things, decide regulations go beyond carefully worded nondiscrimination provision 504, exceed powers Secretary 504. authority rewrite statutory scheme Southeastern Community College Davis, 442 397, 410, 99 2361, 2369, 60 980 (1979); Pennhurst State School & Hospital Halderman, 17, 1531, 1540, 67 694 ("[I]f Congress intends impose moneys, do unambiguously"). Education Welfare Health Human Services. Bright Nunn, 448 245, 247, n.1 (C.A.6 1971); Wright A. Miller, Practice 2950, pp. 492-493 (1973). mistakenly believed Kinnett Dairies Farrow, 580 1260 (C.A.5 stands contrary principle. arose defendant's solicitation bids—which subject injunction—had run course. "[T]he history controversy reveals reasonable expectation—indeed, near certainty—that act complained repeated. paradigm 'capable repetition yet evading review.' " 1266 (footnote omitted). determined issuance had, therefore, erroneous. But say done concluded capable avoiding review. * Respondent wife, children, combined gross excess $23,000 per year enrolled student. Stipulation Facts, App. 31. At oral argument, asserted $100,000 annual affect expense. advised services available agencies Commission Deaf, provided "such interpretation need basis, using guidelines effect According guidelines, zero need. 33.

Category: 8