Document: 419 U.S. 90 95 S.Ct. 289. 42 L.Ed.2d 249 Alfredo GONZALEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant,v.AUTOMATIC EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION et al. No. 73—858. Argued Oct. 21, 1974. Decided Dec. 10, Syllabus Appellant brought this class action for injunctive declaratory relief attacking the constitutionality Illinois automobile repossession resale statutory provisions alleging that he had purchased a car retail installment contract later assigned to appellee bank which (assertedly without any default by appellant or notice him) repossessed resold it third party whom title was transferred. A three-judge District Court held lacked 'standing' attack scheme since sale already taken place allegedly not in complaint directed, at provisions, but only bank's abuse those provisions. sought review under 28 U.S.C. § 1253, provides an appeal from order granting denying injunction civil required Act Congress be heard determined district court. contends, inter alia, dismissal his 'denied' him sought, whereas maintains is purposes 1253 based grounds short statute's constitutional validity. Held: When court denies plaintiff that, if sound, would have justified dissolution as refusal convene begin with, denial available appeals; here Court's decision nonjusticiable lack ground upon could dissolved itself, leaving complaint's disposition single judge, Appeals should determine issue, has no jurisdiction consider. Pp. 93—101. 363 F.Supp. 143, vacated remanded. James O. Latturner, Chicago, Ill., appellant. Albert E. Jenner, Jr., appellees. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 This dismissing appellant's 'standing.'1 We deferred consideration our until hearing merits. 415 947, 94 1467, 39 562. For reasons follow, we concluded directly appealable 2 * The Gonzalez three other named plaintiffs unconstitutional various Commercial Code Motor Vehicle governing repossession, retitling, automobiles basis security agreements.2 alleged violated debtor-purchaser's rights—under Fourteenth, Fourth, Fifth Amendments United States Constitution—to notice, hearing, impartial determination contractual prior car, transfer secured party, party. judgment effect, permanent injunction, compensatory punitive damages past violations their rights. convened pursuant 2281.3 3 represent debtor-purchasers, agreements involving motor vehicles, 'who may vehicles sold opportunity whose certificate been will terminated transferred Secretary State.' defendants were State Illinois, responsible transferring challenged statutes, five organizations operating creditors vehicle field. also designated defendant class, consisting who may, 'upon unilateral debtor-obligees,' seek repossess, dispose of, statutes. 4 pleadings supplementary documents showed contract, defendant-appellee, Mercantile National Bank Chicago (Mercantile). Before joined lawsuit, arranged through office State. done Gonzalez, fact contract. On these facts, dismissed complaint.4 5 contest scheme. First, observed enjoining future enforcement 'useless act' so far concerned, events complained—the car—had place.5 Secondly, reasoned complaint, because default, validity scheme, Mercantile's Noting provision authorized provided where acted absence standing litigate 'the statutes when properly applied debtors actually default.'6 '(s)ince . case fail present claim can reached merits.'7 II 6 Appealing individually purported representative, seeks reversal determination, directing reinstatement complaint. Our appellate controlled 1253: 7 'Except otherwise law, Supreme denying, after interlocutory action, suit proceeding judges.' 8 Gonzalez' jurisdictional argument very simple: did 'deny' requested, one 'required determined' judges several conditions precedent convening §§ 2281 2284 met. That is, question raised substantial;8 enjoin state official executing statewide application;9 least formally equitable relief.10 9 met, places greater emphasis entirely different reading 1253. argues unless adverse merits plaintiff's In case, denied, found constitutionally make challenge. premised reviewed first instance Appeals, rather than direct 10 It understatement say wholly supported precedent, occasions entertained appeals three-judge-court orders injunctions merits.11 But area law doctrine stare decisis historically accorded considerably less its usual weight. These procedural are awkwardly drafted,12 struggling workable sense them, infrequently induced retrace steps.13 Writing occasions, Harlan noted: 11 'Unless inexorably commanded statute, principle importance kept books name once proved unworkable practice; mischievous consequences litigants courts alike perpetuation rule too great.' Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 111, 116, 86 258, 261, 15 194. 12 given 'inexorably statute.' statute 'authorizes means accelerating final merits.' supra, 119, 263. true does literal sense, literalistic approach fully persuasive followed deviation. fact, interpretation frequently deviated path literalism.14 If opaque terms prolix syntax full play, convened, mandatory lie here, many circumstances such extraordinary procedures serve discernible purpose. 13 established apparatus reason: save federal improvident doom, grounds, hands judge.15 some words bear little relation underlying policy, construing stressed procedure 'a measure broad social policy construed with great liberality.' Phillips States, 312 246, 251, 61 480, 483, 85 L.Ed. 800. See Kesler Dept. Public Safety, 369 153, 156—157, 82 807, 810—811, 641; U.S., 124, S.Ct., 265; Allen Board Elections, 393 544, 561—562, 89 817, 829—230, 22 1. 14 over fall within canon narrow construction. Whether read broadly narrowly, there impact congressional ensuring swift grant injunctions. Furthermore, construction consonant overriding encouraged Congress, minimizing docket interests sound judicial administration.16 limit rest resolution case. There evident virtues rule. lend symmetry since, reviewing injunctions, necessarily dealing While issues merits—such justiciability, subject-matter jurisdiction, abstention—are often more trivial consequence, alone argue them appeal. Discretionary remain available, informed mediating wisdom appeals. might instances give detailed Court, disposes most summary fashion.17 16 facts do require us explore sweep argument. Here threejudge 'standing.' decision, nonjusticiable, merely ultimate merits; also, like judge declined court, judge.18 17 itself lacks justiciable courts. Ex parte Poresky, 290 30, 31, 54 3, 4. now well settled request convention reviewable appeals, here.19 absent, left subsequent thus clearly both orders. same decisions made simultaneously, adopting court.20 locus turn technical distinctions. 18 Where perceives justifying dismissal, chronology decisionmaking typically matter mere convenience happenstance. must firmer foundation this. hold, therefore, which, plaintiff, ab initio, 19 accordingly, correctness view sue determine. intimate views consider it.21 simply vacate before remand fresh entered timely prosecuted Appeals.22 20 ordered. 21 Vacated Mojica Automatic Employees Credit Union, D.C., 143. Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 26, 9—503 9—504, 1/2, 3—114(b), 3—116(b), 3—612. Section provides: 'An restraining enforcement, operation execution officer administrative board commission acting shall granted thereof unconstitutionality application therefor section title.' Since court's confine analysis specific similar, however, regard each plaintiffs. 145 146. Id., 145. Goosby Osser, 409 512, 93 854, 35 36. Moody Flowers, 387 97, 87 1544, 643. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. Epstein, 370 713, 1294, 794. Cases Distrct denied want of4standing, justiciability generally: Florida Lime Avocado Growers Jacobsen, 362 73, 80 568, 568; Baker Carr, 186, 691, 663; Flast Cohen, 392 83, 88 1942, 947; Richardson Kennedy, 401 901, 91 868, 27 800; Granite Falls Schneider, 402 1006, 2187, 29 428. jurisdiction: Lynch Household Finance Corp., 405 538, 92 1113, 31 424; Carter Stanton, 669, 1232, 569. abstention Doud Hodge, 350 485, 76 491, 100 577; Zwickler Koota, 389 241, 391, 444. Mitchum Foster, 407 225, 2151, 32 705; American Trial Lawyers Assn. New Jersey 467, 627, 34 651. Perhaps oddest feature whether correctly convened. abjured hesitated exercise 'to authority below corrective appropriate limitations imposes." Bailey Patterson, 34, 549, 551, quoting Gully Interstate Natural Gas Co., 292 16, 18, 565, 566, 78 1088. example: compare Stratton St. Louis S.W.R. 282 51 8, 75 135 (whether judge's appeals); Kennedy Mendoza-Martinez, 372 144, 83 554, 644 FHA Darlington, Inc., 358 84, 87, 79 141, 132 requested); 194 641 violates Supremacy Clause). Read literally, even 'action, suit, proceeding' judges. glossed restrict Metropolitan Water 220 539, 545, 600, 603, 55 575. literally forbidden 'dismiss enter judgment' 2284(5). prohibit fails meet requirements 2282. Berueffy, Three Judge Federal Rocky Mt. L.Rev. 64, 73—74 (1942), Note, Minn.L.Rev. 131, (1944). always recognized power dismiss general inquiry into additional requisites specified 4, 152; 33, 550; 715, 1296; supra. 'interlocutory injunction,' disclaimed intelocutory Goldstein Cox, 396 471, 671, 24 663, Rockefeller Catholic Medical Center, 397 820, 1517, 25 806. requires operate against 'statute,' term include enactments application, 101, 1547, 64. Cf. King Mfg. City Council Augusta, 277 100, 103—104, 48 489, 490, 72 801, 'statute' used predecessor 1257(2). calls ground' 'unconstitutionality,' necessary obvious patent, challenge grounded Clause, n. 12, 250—251, 550. sketched legislative history 116—119, 261—263. Currie, Three-Judge Constitutional Litigation, U.Chi.L.Rev. 1, 3—12 (1964); Court: Scope Procedure Under 2281, 77 Harv.L.Rev. 299, 299—301 (1963). '(I)nasmuch brings loose defeat expressed Jurisdictional February 13, 1925, keep confines docket.' 250, 483. 478, 675; Gunn University Committee, 399 383, 387—388, 2013, 2015—2016, 26 684; 562, 830; Regents Left Education Project, 404 541, 543, 652, 653, 30 697. 'The latter-day judiciary acts largely story restricting right Court.' F. Frank-furter J. Landis, Business 119 (1927). To trend reform, represents major, increasingly controversial, exception. number cases dramatically increased decade. Ammerman, Courts: How They Run!, 52 F.R.D. 293, 304—306; Annual Report Director Administrative Office Courts, 1974, p. IX—44. 1972 Term, 43 opinions—nearly quarter total—were cases. Symposium, Freund Report: Statistical Analysis Critique, Rutgers 878, 902 (1974). marks dilution control Chief Taft identified prime object 1925 Act. Taft, Jurisdiction Yale L.J. (1925). summarily between two-thirds three-fourths filed term. Douglas, Its Case Load, 45 Cornell L.Q. 401, 410 (1960). L.Rev., 9, 902—903. seems probable cases, while unworthy plenary benefit normal single-judge Rosado Wyman, 304 1354, dismissed, 395 826, 2134, 23 739; Mengelkoch Industrial Welfare Comm'n, 284 950, permit 60, 215; Crossen Breckenridge, Cir., 446 F.2d 833, 837; Commuters Levitt, 279 40, aff'd, 1148; Hart 314 823, 824. refuses retains see Schackman Arnebergh, 427, 1622, 865, either petition writ mandamus certified 1292(b). routes dissolve 215, Wilson Port Lavaca, 391 352, 1502, 636. disposed order, lies 1291. appears former's damage pending. will, course, free new development appraising SEC Committee Human Rights, 403, 577, 560. 61.

Category: 8