Court Opinion

ID: 9467934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:59:55.587618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:35.878475
License: Public Domain

KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I would not issue a stay and injunction in this case. An injunction pending appeal is extraordinary relief that should be granted sparingly. We do not grant such relief unless we find: (1) that a substantial likelihood exists that the district court abused its discretion in failing to grant relief, (2) that the appellant faces a substantial threat of irreparable injury, (3) that the threatened injury to the appellant outweighs any harm the temporary relief would impose on the appellee, and (4) that the relief would not disserve the public interest. MacBride v. Askew, 541 F.2d 465, 467 (5th Cir. 1976). I am not convinced that appellants have satisfied all four criteria. Specifically, appellants have failed to demonstrate a “substantial” likelihood that they will prevail on the merits. The majority offers no reasoning to support its assertion that appellants are likely to succeed on the merits; rather, this conclusion is apparently based on cases construing other underlined drug paraphernalia statutes. Only two circuit courts have considered the constitutionality of the Model Drug Paraphernalia Act. The Eighth Circuit recently upheld in its entirety a statute based on the Model Act. The Casbah, Inc. v. Thone, No. 80-1925,-F.2d-(8th Cir., June 8, 1981). The Sixth Circuit invalidated three ordinances based on the Model Act, Record Revolution No. 6, Inc. v. City of Parma, 638 F.2d 916 (6th Cir. 1980); the Supreme Court, however, has vacated' and remanded Record Revolution to the Sixth Circuit. 49 U.S.L.W. 3882, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. -, 68 L.Ed.2d - (U.S. May 26, 1981).1 Numerous district courts have upheld the constitutionality of statutes based on the Model Act. See Tobacco Accessories v. Treen, 501 F.Supp. 168 (E.D.La.1980) (appeal pending); Mid-Atlantic Accessories Trade Assoc., et al. v. State of Maryland, 500 F.Supp. 834 (D.Md. 1980); Delaware Accessories Trade Assoc. v. Gebelein, 497 F.Supp. 289 (D.Del.1980); and World Imports, Inc. v. Woodbridge Township, 493 F.Supp. 428 (D.N.J.1980). Moreover, should the district court order be affirmed on appeal, the public interest could be disserved by issuance of the stay and injunction.
Respectfully, I dissent.

. The Supreme Court remanded Record Revolution to the Sixth Circuit for further reconsideration in light of the recently enacted Ohio Revised Code § 2925.14. This statute prohibits the sale of marijuana paraphernalia to juveniies.