Court Opinion

ID: 9493983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:25:17.383942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:08.723799
License: Public Domain

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
The panel opinion correctly determines that the district court simply interpreted an existing consent decree; the district court did not issue a new mandatory injunction. Therefore, we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal. I write separately because I believe that we ought to be somewhat more charitable about the district court’s handling of the matter. Characterizing the district court’s action as the interpretation of an existing consent decree is not, in my view, a very close call. Nor do I believe that, in the context in which they were made, we can say that the district court’s remarks were vague or misleading. The administration of a consent decree in a case such as this one is a very difficult task, and the district court conducted the hearing in a manner quite compatible -with the delicate nature of these proceedings.