Cavel Intern., Inc. v. Madigan

• Decision Date: 18 July 2007
• Docket Number: No. 07-2658.,07-2658.
• Citation: 500 F.3d 544
• Parties: CAVEL INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Lisa MADIGAN, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

500 F.3d 544

CAVEL INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Lisa MADIGAN, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-2658.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted July 17, 2007.

Decided July 18, 2007.

Opinion August 6, 2007.

J. Philip Calabrese, Squire Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

John E. Farrell, Dekalb County State's Attorney's Office, Sycamore, IL, Mary E. Welsh, Office of the Attorney General Civil Appeals Division, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Robert C. Pottinger, Barrick, Switzer, Long, Balsley & Van Evera, Rockford, IL, for Amicus Curiae.

Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and POSNER and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

POSNER, Circuit Judge.

Cavel International, the principal appellant (we can ignore the others), produces horsemeat for human consumption. The plant at which it slaughters the horses is in Illinois. Americans do not eat horsemeat, but it is considered a delicacy in Europe and Cavel exports its entire output. Its suit challenges the constitutionality of a recent amendment to the Illinois Horse Meat Act, 225 ILCS 635/1.5, that makes it unlawful for any person in the state to slaughter a horse for human consumption or "to import into or export from this State, or to sell, buy, give away, hold, or accept any horse meat if that person knows or should know that the horse meat will be used for human consumption." Cavel lost in the district court, has appealed, and, after unsuccessfully moving the district court for an injunction pending appeal, has asked us for such an injunction, emphasizing the disastrous consequences for its business if the decision of the district court stands.

An affidavit by the firm's general manager states that it is a virtual certainty that if the injunction is denied the result will be the "permanent closure" of its plant. The state counters feebly with an unattested statement that because Cavel some years ago reopened after a fire had forced it to close for two years, it can probably reopen again if it has to close during the appeal. But there is no contention that Cavel lacked fire insurance to tide it over that earlier period of closure. Should the judgment of the district court upholding the constitutionality of the new statutory amendment be reversed, Cavel could not obtain monetary relief from the defendants. They are state officials sued in their official capacities because the only relief sought against them is an injunction. They therefore are not subject to liability for damages; a suit against state officials in their official capacity is treated as a suit against the state itself.

Cavel has made a compelling case that it needs the injunction pending appeal to avert serious irreparable harm — the uncompensated death of its business. Its showing persuaded the D.C. Circuit to grant Cavel a stay pending judicial review of an order by the Department of Agriculture that would if upheld force the shutdown of its business on grounds unrelated to those of the present litigation. Humane Society of the United States v. Cavel International, Inc., No. 07-5120 (D.C.Cir. May 1, 2007) (per curiam). The state does not question the gravity of Cavel's situation (despite the remark about the fire) but responds that the state will incur irreparable harm, too, if the injunction is granted, because a "slaughter cannot be undone." But the statute does not seem to be intended to protect horses. (The object of the statute is totally obscure.) For it is only when horsemeat is intended for human consumption—the niche market that Cavel serves (less that 1 percent of its output is sold for other consumption) — that a horse cannot be killed for its meat. Were Cavel or a successor able to find a market in pet-food companies, the slaughter of horses at its plant would continue without interference from the state. And, if not, all that will happen is that horses will be slaughtered elsewhere to meet the demands of the European gourmets.

The state argues that the injunction will diminish "the scope of democratic governance." That is a powerful reason for judicial self-restraint when a statute, state or federal, is sought to be invalidated by a court. A rule barring state statutes from going into effect until any challenges to their validity were litigated to completion would be offensive on that ground; it would amount to rewriting the effective date in all Illinois statutes. But at issue is a stay, based on a showing in a particular case that the harm to the challenger from denial of a stay would greatly exceed the harm to the state from its grant, that would delay the application of the statute to the challenger for a few months (the appeal in this case has been expedited and will be argued on August 16). Such a stay does not operate as a statutory revision or significantly impair democratic governance. It is a detail that because the statute in question is applicable to only a single entity, a stay of enforcement against that entity acts to postpone the effective date of the statute rather than just to postpone the statute's application to one entity subject to it.

The state does not argue that a statute can never be enjoined pending appeal; it concedes, as we shall see, that such an injunction is appropriate if the usual criteria for a stay pending appeal are satisfied. The horsemeat statute is remote from the vital interests of most Illinois residents; a brief delay in its enforcement against Cavel will not create a perceptible harm. Indeed, it is difficult to see what harm would ensue from permanently abrogating the statute if the welfare of horses would not be affected, as it might well not be, as we have pointed out.

Even though denying the injunction pending appeal would do far more harm to Cavel than granting it would do to the state, we must consider whether the appeal has any merit. If an appeal has no merit at all, an injunction pending the appeal should of course be denied. But if the appeal has some though not necessarily great merit, then the showing of harm of the magnitude shown by Cavel in this case would justify the granting of an injunction pending appeal provided, as is also true in this case, that the defendant would not suffer substantial harm from the granting of the injunction. This is the "sliding scale" approach to decisions on motions for preliminary injunction that we have endorsed in previous cases, e.g., Christian Legal Society v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir.2006); FoodComm International v. Barry, 328 F.3d 300, 303 (7th Cir.2003); American Hospital Supply Corp. v. Hospital Products Ltd., 780 F.2d 589, 593-94 (7th Cir.1985), as have other courts. E.g., Serono Laboratories, Inc. v. Shalala, 158 F.3d 1313, 1317-18 (D.C.Cir. 1998); Dan River, Inc. v. Icahn, 701 F.2d 278, 283 (4th Cir.1983). It amounts simply to weighting harm to a party by the merit of his case.

In denying the motion for an injunction pending appeal, the district court did not apply this test or indeed any other. He said only that Cavel had failed to make a "strong showing" that the horsemeat amendment is unconstitutional. He ignored the balance of harms. Cavel's failure to make a strong showing is certainly relevant to the granting of relief, but it is not decisive. The judge did not exercise the required discretion in determining whether to grant the injunction, and so his decision is not entitled to the deference to which discretionary rulings are entitled. Nor is his ruling that Cavel failed to make a strong showing of likelihood to prevail entitled to deference. It was a legal ruling the appellate review of which is plenary. Hinrichs v. Bosma, 440 F.3d 393, 396 (7th Cir.2006).

There is a difference between asking a district court for a preliminary injunction and asking a court of appeals for a stay of, or other relief from, the district court's ruling. But the sliding-scale approach is also applied in such a case. Id.; Sofinet v. INS, 188 F.3d 703, 706-07 (7th Cir.1999); In re Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., 115 F.3d 1294, 1300-01 (7th Cir.1997); cf. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 777-78, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987). As the Supreme Court explained in Hilton, "different Rules of Procedure govern the power of district courts and courts of appeals to stay an order pending appeal. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 62(c); Fed. Rule App. Proc. 8(a). Under both Rules, however, the factors regulating the issuance of a stay are generally the same." Id. at 776, 107 S.Ct. 2113.

Cavel, it is true, is not seeking a stay; it is seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the horsemeat statute against it pending appeal. But Rule 8(a)(1)(C), (2), of the appellate rules explicitly authorizes the court of appeals to grant an injunction pending appeal and does not suggest that the standard is different from that applicable to a motion to stay the district court's judgment. We are mindful that Chief Justice Rehnquist, in a chambers opinion (and thus speaking only for himself and not for any of the other Justices), Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301, 122 S.Ct. 1, 150 L.Ed.2d 782 (2001), held that the authority to grant such an injunction is conferred not by Rule 8 but by the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Traditionally of course the applicant for relief under the Act must show an incontrovertible right to relief, and not merely some likelihood of prevailing. The Chief Justice required the same high showing by an applicant for an injunction pending appeal. As the 1967 Committee Note to Rule 8 points out, however, the Supreme Court had held that the power was an inherent judicial power; and so it doesn't have to be grounded in the All Writs Act.

The approach proposed in Brown has not caught on. The decision has been cited in seven cases. One was another chambers opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 542 U.S. 1305, 1305-06, 125 S.Ct. 2. 159 L.Ed.2d 805 (2004). The other six (five district court o...