Court Opinion

ID: 9638635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:49:19.523504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:08.204254
License: Public Domain

MOORMAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part).
I agree to the setting aside of the injunction, not on the grounds stated in the opinion or concurrence, but for the reason *896that in my opinion the bill does not state a case for judicial decision. The suit is an attack on the aims and purposes of the Tennessee Valley Authority as expressed in its “power program.” Its purpose is to obtain a decree invalidating the program, not as an act or acts done or about to be done, but in its plans and purposes. This tenders an abstract issue only. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466, 80 L.Ed. 688, holds that it is not a justiciable question. I find none in the bill. To spell one out from one or another of its allegations of fact would make it defective for joinder of parties having interests too widely variant. I am of opinion, therefore, that the bill should be dismissed, and I dissent from the holding that it should not