Gordon v. Holder
Decision Date | 18 February 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 10–5227.,10–5227. |
Citation | 632 F.3d 722 |
Parties | Robert GORDON, Appellantv.Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of the United States, et al., Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:10–cv–01092).Aaron M. Streett argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were R. Stan Mortenson, Sara E. Kropf, and Richard P. Sobiecki.Michael P. Abate, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Ronald C, Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney, and Mark B. Stern and Alisa B. Klein, Attorneys. R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, entered an appearance.Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Idaho, and Brett T. DeLange, Deputy Attorney General, were on the brief for amicus curiae State of Idaho.John F. O'Connor and Scott A. Sinder were on the brief for amici curiae National Association of Convenience Stores and New York Association of Convenience Stores in support of appellees.Allison M. Zieve and Adina H. Rosenbaum were on the brief for amid curiae American Cancer Society, et al. in support of appellees.Linda Singer was on the brief for amicus curiae City of New York in support of appellees.Before: ROGERS, BROWN and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge BROWN.BROWN, Circuit Judge:
I
On March 31, 2010, the President signed into law the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (“PACT Act”), Pub.L. No. 111–154, 124 Stat. 1087 (2010). The Act, which significantly amended its predecessor, the Jenkins Act, was aimed primarily at combating three evils: tobacco sales to minors, cigarette trafficking, and circumvention of state taxation requirements. Pub.L. No. 111–154, § 1(b), reprinted in 15 U.S.C. § 375 note (findings 1–10). The means Congress selected to achieve these ends are the subject of the litigation in this case. Congress reasoned that by requiring delivery sellers to ensure all applicable taxes are pre-paid, it could prevent purchasers from skirting state taxation through online purchases. 15 U.S.C. § 376a(a)(3)(D), (d)(1). And to prevent both sales to minors and cigarette trafficking, Congress decided to ban all shipments of cigarettes via the U.S. mails. 18 U.S.C. § 1716E(a).
Plaintiff–Appellant Robert Gordon is a Seneca Indian and a delivery seller of tobacco products. As a delivery seller, Gordon distributes his products by mail, rather than through a brick-and-mortar retail store. See 15 U.S.C. § 375(5)-(6). Prior to the PACT Act, ninety-five percent of Gordon's business came from the sale of tobacco by internet and phone. But since the Act's passage, Gordon claims he has lost almost all of his business due to the remedial measures Congress enacted.
On June 28, 2010—the day before the PACT Act was to go into effect—Gordon filed suit in the district court challenging the Act's constitutionality under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. In conjunction with his complaint, Gordon sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The district court denied Gordon's motion, basing its decision on the “lateness of the hour in which plaintiff [sought] this relief,” and the court's conclusion that it was not in the public's interest to “stop in its tracks a legislative enactment of ... Congress.” Dist. Ct. Docket No. 6, at 1, 2. Gordon appeals, arguing that unless this court enjoins enforcement of the mailing ban and the taxation provision, his business will suffer irreparable harm.
II
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). In considering whether the “extraordinary remedy” of a preliminary injunction is warranted, id. at 376, a district court must set forth its consideration of the factors and its attendant conclusions of law, Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); see also Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co., 309 U.S. 310, 316, 60 S.Ct. 517, 84 L.Ed. 774 (1940) (). If a district court fails to explicate its analysis of the injunction factors, a reviewing court will be unable to determine “whether the district court properly carried out” its charge to weigh the factors with one another. Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 305 (D.C.Cir.2006).
In examining the district court's decision, our review of the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction is for abuse of discretion, but our review of legal issues is de novo. Davis v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1291 (D.C.Cir.2009). Applying this standard, we conclude the district court abused its discretion.
First, the district court erred by relying on the late hour of the filing. At the time of Gordon's filing, the statute had yet to go into effect. A motion seeking to enjoin a statute's enforcement before the statute may legally be enforced is timely—or at least not late—by definition. Of course, in some cases, pre-enforcement challenges may present ripeness concerns, see, e.g., Unity08 v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 596 F.3d 861, 865 (D.C.Cir.2010) ( ); Sabre, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 429 F.3d 1113, 1119–21 (D.C.Cir.2005) ( ), but we have yet to find a case where they present tardiness concerns.
Moreover, even if the filing was untimely (which it was not), a delay in filing is not a proper basis for denial of a preliminary injunction. Although federal courts have at times bolstered their denials of preliminary injunctions by referring to the late hour of a filing, those cases in no way stand for the proposition that a late filing, on its own, is a permissible basis for denying a preliminary injunction. See, e.g., McDermott ex rel. NLRB v. Ampersand Pub., LLC, 593 F.3d 950, 965 (9th Cir.2010) ; Fund for Animals v. Frizzell, 530 F.2d 982, 987 (D.C.Cir.1975) ( ). Rather, they demonstrate only that untimely filings may support a conclusion that the plaintiff cannot satisfy the irreparable harm prong. See, e.g., McDermott, 593 F.3d at 965 ; RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal, 552 F.3d 1203, 1211 (10th Cir.2009) (); Quince Orchard Valley Citizens Ass'n, Inc. v. Hodel, 872 F.2d 75, 80 (4th Cir.1989) ( ). But because the district court did not consider in the first instance whether Gordon would suffer irreparable harm, any reliance on the timeliness of the filing would have been improper even if the filing were untimely.
Second, the district court erred by failing to consider meaningfully the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gordon v. Holder
...three evils: tobacco sales to minors, cigarette trafficking, and circumvention of state taxation requirements.” Gordon v. Holder, 632 F.3d 722, 723 (D.C.Cir.2011). In the case before the Court, Gordon challenges two of the means Congress chose to achieve its goals. First, the Act makes it u......
-
Sierra Club v. Jackson
...“a district court must set forth its consideration of the [four] factors and its attendant conclusions of law[.]” Gordon v. Holder, 632 F.3d 722, 724 (D.C.Cir.2011) (emphasis added). So must EPA, and the failure to do so in this case is arbitrary and capricious.2. Departure from Prior Prece......
-
Goings v. Court Serv.
...in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008); Gordon v. Holder, 632 F.3d 722, 724 (D.C.Cir.2011). The purpose of a preliminary injunction “is merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the......
-
Stop this Insanity, Inc. Emp. Leadership Fund v. Fed. Election Comm'n
...interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008); accord Gordon v. Holder, 632 F.3d 722, 724 (D.C.Cir.2011). Historically, these four factors have been evaluated on a “sliding scale” in this Circuit, such that “[i]f the movant makes ......
-
State + Local Tax Insights: Winter 2014
...Ct. Del. Dist., Dec. 19, 2012); Gordon v. Holder, 721 F.3d 638 (D.C. Ct. App. 2013), affirming 826 F. Supp. 2d 279 (2011), on remand from 632 F.3d 722 (D.C. Ct. App. 2011). Additionally, in Linn v. Dep't of Revenue, 2013 IL App. (4th) 121055 (Ill. Ct. App. 4th Dist. Dec. 18, 2013), the Illi......