Court Opinion

ID: 9843143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:28:30.271686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:37.986123
License: Public Domain

BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Because I believe the majority has ignored the implications of the procedural posture of this case; I respectfully dissent.
This case comes to us on appeal by both parties from the district court’s Opinion and Modified Preliminary Injunction Order. Needless to say, a preliminary injunction is an equitable remedy the purpose of which is to maintain the relative positions of the parties until proceedings on the merits can be conducted. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 890, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 1834, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981); see also Southern Milk Sales, Inc. v. Martin, 924 F.2d 98, 102 (6th Cir.1991); In re DeLorean Motor Co., 755 F.2d 1223, 1229 (6th Cir.1985). A preliminary injunction hearing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 is not a proceeding on the merits unless the district court chooses to combine the hearing on the preliminary injunction with a hearing on the merits. As Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2) provides:
Before or after the commencement of the hearing of an application for a preliminary injunction, the court may order the trial of the action on the merits to be advanced and consolidated with the hearing of the application. Even, when this consolidation is not ordered, any evidence received upon an application for a preliminary injunction which would be admissible upon the trial on the merits becomes part of the record on the trial and need not be repeated upon the trial. This subdivision (a)(2) shall be so construed and applied as to save to the parties any rights they may have to trial by jury.
In Camenisch, the Supreme Court commented on the difference between a Rule 65 preliminary injunction hearing and a Rule 65(a)(2) consolidated proceeding and the nature of the judicial task in each:
[I]t is generally inappropriate for a federal court at the preliminary-injunction stage to give a final judgment on the merits. Should an expedited decision on the merits be appropriate, Rule 65(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a means of securing one. That Rule permits a court to “order the trial of the action on the merits to be advanced and consolidated with the hearing of the application.” Before such an order may issue, however, the courts have commonly required that “the parties should normally receive clear and unambiguous notice [of the court’s intent to consolidate the trial and the hearing] either before the hearing commences or at a time which will still afford the parties a full opportunity to present their respective cases.”
Camenisch, 451 U.S. at 395, 101 S.Ct. at 1834 (citations omitted).
In this case, the district court did not consolidate the proceedings pursuant to Rule *110865(a)(2). It is clear from the record that the merits of this action have not been heard or decided. Indeed, as observed in Camenisch, any findings of fact or conclusions of law made by the district court for purposes of issuing a preliminary injunction are not binding on the parties or the court during subsequent proceedings on the merits. In fact, this Court has distinguished between findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a district court after a hearing on a preliminary injunction and those made after a consolidated hearing.
Although evidence received at a Rule 65(a) hearing may enter the trial record, the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to the preliminary injunction are not binding at trial. Based, as they usually are, on incomplete evidence and a relatively hurried consideration of the issues, these provisional decisions should not be used outside the context in which they originally were rendered. Consequently, it is inappropriate for the court at a Rule 65(a) hearing to make findings of fact or conclusions of law that go beyond what is necessary to decide whether a preliminary injunction should be issued.
Brown v. International Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 58 AFL-CIO, 936 F.2d 251, 256 (6th Cir.), reh’g denied (1991) (citing Wright, Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2950, p. 494; see also Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310, 60 S.Ct. 517, 84 L.Ed. 774 (1940)). While the district court in this ease may have had more evidence or more time to consider whether to issue the preliminary injunction than is usual, neither of these factors transforms the district court’s findings or conclusions into final findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding the merits of the plaintiffs’ complaint, absent consolidation under Rule 65(a)(2). Additionally, while the Supreme Court in Camenisch observed that “it is generally inappropriate for a federal court at the preliminary injunction stage to give a final judgment on the merits,” thus allowing for the possibility that a district court might be able to issue a final decision on the merits in a preliminary injunction hearing, the district court in this case did not do so.
To date, the district court has not conducted proceedings on the merits, including conducting a trial by jury, if necessary (and as plaintiffs have demanded). To date, the district court has not decided whether to grant declaratory relief regarding whether the defendants have unconstitutionally enforced Upper Arlington City Ordinance § 517.17, or whether this ordinance can be constitutionally enforced. To date, the district court has not had the opportunity to decide whether to issue a permanent injunction barring enforcement of this ordinance. We do not have a ruling before us from the district court on the merits and it is premature for us to pass on the merits before the district court has had the opportunity to do so. The limited task before this Court, therefore, is to review the district court’s decision granting the preliminary injunction.
It is well-established that this Court reviews the decision of a district court to grant a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. Washington v. Reno, 35 F.3d 1093, 1098 (6th Cir.1994); Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. Michigan, 11 F.3d 1341, 1348 (6th Cir.1993); Basicomputer Corp. v. Scott, 973 F.2d 507, 511 (6th Cir.1992); Forry, Inc. v. Neundorfer, Inc., 837 F.2d 259 (6th Cir.1988). As we have said, the decision of a district court to grant a preliminary injunction is
generally accorded a great deal of deference on appellate review and will only be disturbed if the court relied upon clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applied the governing law, or used an erroneous legal standard.
Michigan Coalition v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir.1991) (citations omitted), rev’d on other grounds, 954 F.2d 1174 (6th Cir.1992).
When a district court is asked to issue a preliminary injunction, it does not consider the merits of the case, but rather balances four factors in determining whether to issue the injunction. These well-established factors are:
(1) the likelihood that the party seeking the preliminary injunction will succeed on the merits of the claim;
*1109(2) whether the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable harm without the grant of the- extraordinary relief;
(3) the probability that granting the injunction will cause substantial harm to others; and
(4) whether the public interest is advanced by the issuance of the injunction.
Washington, 35 F.3d at 1099. This Court has said that these factors are not prerequisites to be met, but factors to be balanced. In re DeLorean, 755 F.2d at 1229. As to the first factor, the party requesting the injunction need not show a strong likelihood of success on the merits, nor a substantial likelihood of success, but must show that the merits of the case present a sufficiently serious question to justify further investigation of the merits. Id. at 1230.
When balancing these factors and deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the Supreme Court has cautioned that a district court should decide only those issues which are presented to it and which are necessary to determine whether to order a preliminary injunction. In Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., the Supreme Court held that a district court committed serious error when it decided whether a state statute was constitutional on a motion for a preliminary injunction. 309 U.S. at 316, 60 S.Ct. at 520. In Mayo, Florida citrus growers filed a complaint for temporary and final injunctive relief against enforcement of a Florida statute, the Growers’ Cost Guarantee Act. The statute gave the Florida Commissioner of Agriculture emergency power to set the price paid for citrus fruit and a related statute provided that any “dealer” (including growers) could lose its license by violating the Act. The plaintiffs alleged that the statute violated several of their constitutional rights, including their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. During the preliminary injunction hearing, the Commissioner asked the district court to “pass on all questions presented, and especially on the constitutionality of the Act.” Id. The district court found the Act to be unconstitutional, but issued the injunction for other reasons. The Supreme Court vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded, stating:
We think the court committed serious error in dealing with this ease upon motion for temporary injunction. The question before it was not whether the act was constitutional or unconstitutional; was not whether the Commission had complied with the requirements of the act, if valid, but whether the showing made raised serious questions, under the federal Constitution and the state law, and disclosed that enforcement of the act, pending final hearing, would inflict irreparable damages upon the complainants.
Id. In a paragraph that is less than clear, Mayo contains some language indicating that, where the parties argue the constitutionality of the statute in proceedings on a preliminary injunction, the district court may consider the issue. Mayo, 309 U.S. at 317, 60 S.Ct. at 520. However, the Supreme Court concludes that, where the district court confines itself to the issue presented [the issuance of the preliminary injunction], the proper standard of review is abuse of discretion and only the findings of fact and conclusions of law actually made should be reviewed. Id.
■ In the present case, after reviewing the district court’s findings and conclusions regarding the four factors it was required to balance, I find no clear error in the district court’s findings and no abuse of discretion in its application of these four factors to the facts. Therefore, I would affirm its decision to grant the injunction. As to the first factor, the likelihood of success on the merits, the majority’s opinion supports my view that we should affirm the district court. The majority has reached the merits of the central questions in this case — whether the ordinance was enforced in a constitutional manner and whether it is constitutional at all— and has decided that the plaintiffs are likély to succeed on the merits. The majority should have stopped its analysis there and affirmed the district court as to the propriety of issuing the injunction, assuming they find no error in the district courts’ findings and conclusions on the pther factors.
The final step of this Court’s review of the preliminary injunction is a review of the scope of the injunction. The district court *1110may abuse its discretion not only in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, but also in delineating the scope of that injunction. This is the crux of the parties’ dispute — whether the three (or five) house buffer zone is constitutional under Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 108 S.Ct. 2495, 101 L.Ed.2d 420 (1988), and under a ease decided since the parties briefed the issues, Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2516, 129 L.Ed.2d 593 (1994). Because the size of the buffer zone at issue here is unclear, I would construe the injunction as creating a three-house zone and would remand for the district court to clarify its order accordingly.
This Court’s interpretation of Frisby will determine whether the scope of the present injunction is constitutional under Frisby. In Frisby, the Supreme Court was attempting to interpret a Brookfield, Wisconsin ordinance so as to avoid constitutional difficulties. In attempting to so interpret the Brookfield ordinance, the court did not set out to prescribe what a constitutional injunction might look like in every instance of focused residential picketing. Also, the opinion tried to balance the residential privacy interests of the homeowner with the First Amendment rights of the picketers who were, as here,' engaged in focused, targeted picketing. It justified its decision by emphasizing the importance of protecting residential privacy, including the state’s interest in protecting
the well-being, tranquility, and privacy [of the home] ... the unique nature of the home, “the last citadel of the tired, the weary, and the sick”... the one retreat to which men and women can repair to escape the tribulations of daily pursuits ... [where they have the] ability to avoid intrusions ... [and refuge, for] the unwilling listener.
Frisby, 487 U.S. at 474, 484-85, 108 S.Ct. at 2495, 2502. Further, it observed “[t]hat [because] we are often ‘captives’ outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech does not mean we must- be captives everywhere.” Id. at 484, 108 S.Ct. at 2502.
Focused, targeted picketing can infringe these privacy interests even when the picketers are not standing on the sidewalk adjacent to a person’s property. The case before us presents a set of facts where the residential dweller’s interests continue to be infringed by the picketers’ activities. Thus, given the rationale in Frisby for balancing the constitutional rights involved, I do not interpret Frisby to mean that other forms of targeted, focused residential picketing, besides that taking place solely in front of one home, may not be banned. The court in Frisby said:
Here the picketing is narrowly directed at the household, not the public. The type of picketers banned by the Brookfield ordinance generally do not seek to disseminate a message to the general public, but to intrude upon the targeted resident, and to do so in an especially offensive way. Moreover,- even if some such picketers have a broader communicative purpose, their activity nonetheless inherently and offensively intrudes on residential privacy. The devastating effect of targeted picketing on the quiet enjoyment of the home is beyond doubt:
“ ‘To those inside ... the home becomes something less than a home when and while the picketing ... continued] ... [The] tensions and pressures may be psychological, not physical, but they are not, for that reason, less inimical to family privacy and truly domestic tranquility.’”
Frisby, 487 U.S. at 486, 108 S.Ct. at 2503 (citing Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 478, 100 .S.Ct. 2286, 2299, 65 L.Ed.2d 263 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting), quoting Wauwatosa v. King, 49 Wis.2d 398, 182 N.W.2d 530, 537 (1971)).
■ In Frisby, the Court also stated that “[t]he First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the ‘captive’ audience cannot'avoid the objectionable speech”. Id. at 487, 108 S.Ct. at 2504. Thus, I believe that the picketers may be prevented from engaging in targeted picketing, even when their method of targeting includes slow marching, if their method of picketing continues to infringe on the privacy interests mentioned above, when, for example, the picketers create a situation where the target of the picket is a captive audience *1111or whose residence is under siege. Merely because the plaintiffs chose to march slowly by other residences, as well as the targeted residence, does not insulate their activity from regulation. The targeted homeowner is as much a captive audience when picketers repeatedly march in front of a home as when they are standing still. The psychological injury and disturbance to the tranquility of the home are not reduced because the picketers are marching slowly. The district court properly sought to curb the undesirable effects of plaintiffs’ targeted picketing by enjoining plaintiffs from entering a buffer zone around the targeted home and therefore I would affirm the scope of this injunction under Frisby.
Turning now to Madsen, an initial problem for me is whether we have a new test for determining the constitutionality of content-neutral injunctions. Id. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 2538 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“The [majority] does not give this new standard a name, but perhaps we could call it intermediate-intermediate scrutiny. The difference between it and intermediate scrutiny ... is frankly too subtle for me to describe”). The “intermediate-intermediate” test described in Madsen requires this Court to ask “whether the challenged provisions of the injunction burden no more speech than necessary to serve a significant government interest.” Madsen, — U.S. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 2524. Because the Madsen test does not alter my analysis, I wonder if this is a “new” test for content-neutral injunctions.
In Madsen, the Supreme Court struck down a 300-foot buffer zone around the residences of abortion clinic staff because it is “much larger than the zone provided for in Frisby ” and because the ban would include “general marching through residential neighborhoods, or even walking a route in front of an entire block of houses.” Id. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 2529 (quoting Frisby, 487 U.S. at 483, 108 S.Ct. at 2502). First, I believe the Madsen Court incorrectly read Frisby as creating a “zone.” Frisby did not create a “zone,” but provided a constitutional construction of the ordinance at issue. Frisby prohibited focused picketing taking .place solely in front of a particular residence. If Frisby created a “zone,” we have no idea how large the “zone” is, i.e. how far back from the front of a house picketers must be, et cetera. Second, Madsen struck down a 300-foot zone on the facts of the case. The Madsen court stated that the record before it did not justify the 300-foot buffer zone and suggested that “a limitation on the time, duration of picketing, and number of pickets outside a smaller zone could have accomplished the desired result.” Id. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 2529.
The three-house zone provided for here is no more burdensome than necessary to protect the significant governmental interest in protecting residential privacy. Id. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 2524. The plaintiffs may still march through the neighborhood, on the cul-de-sac, and even in front of the targeted house (though at a distance). Based on the foregoing, I would affirm the district court’s decision, finding that its three-house zone is constitutional in light of Frisby and Madsen. Under these facts, the three-house zone is justified and is no larger than necessary to prevent the targeted homeowner and his family from being captives and to protect their other residential privacy interests. The picketers have ample alternative means of communication, including the ability to continue their picket on the targeted homeowner’s street. In fact, given the small size of the cul-de-sac, the district court may have been justified had it also limited the number of picketers who could picket on the cul-de-sac. Id. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 2529.
Finally, though Madsen approved a thirty-six foot buffer zone in that ease, a buffer zone may not adequately protect the residential privacy interests in this case. Homeowners’ privacy interests may not be adequately protected by a zone when invasion-like residential picketing occurs. In this case, the City of Upper Arlington received several complaints about the picketing, including complaints from “non-targeted” homeowners on the cul-de-sac. Some of those homeowners likely experienced a similar invasion of their privacy — were captive audiences to unwanted speech, maybe were hesitant to let their children go outside while *1112so many strangers were on the sidewalks, were hesitant to go outside themselves, or drive their ears out their driveways because they might have an unpleasant or threatening encounter with one or more of the picketers. Therefore, had the district court limited the picketers to picketing at the end of the street, in my view such an injunction would have more equitably balanced the interests involved.
To resolve this ease, this Court had to consider Madsen because the residential streets and sidewalks involved are “traditional public fora.” However, perhaps it is time for the Supreme Court to consider modifying its public forum analysis in the case of residential streets and sidewalks or, as Justice Stevens has intimated, consider some other analytical approach in cases involving First Amendment issues. Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 833, 833 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. 3439, 3465, 3465 n. 1, 87 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985) (Stevens, J., dissenting). Perhaps residential streets and sidewalks should be reclassified as a special type of forum because of the residential privacy interests involved. I wonder if the citizens who live on primarily residential streets ever considered these streets to be “traditional public fora” as described by the courts in this country. In many residential areas, especially subdivisions, the fee to the land underlying the streets and sidewalks may still be owned by adjacent property owners (and not the public) with a government body owning only an easement in trust for purposes of providing a public right-of-way. In many municipalities, the owner of land on which the sidewalk is located, and not the general taxpaying public, is responsible for the actual maintenance of the sidewalk, including the cost. These factors, plus the importance of residential privacy interests lead me to believe that it’s time to reconsider whether all streets over which the public may travel are traditional public fora.
Based on the foregoing, I believe that the district court did not abuse its discretion in either issuing the preliminary injunction at issue or in determining its scope. Because I would affirm the district court, I now, respectfully, dissent.