By Katherine A. Grosh
Partner, Beermann Pritikin Mirabelli Swerdlove LLP
In Construction & General Laborers’Local Union No. 330 v. Town of Grand Chute, Wisconsin,
No. 15-1932, 2016 WL 4410073 (7th Cir. Aug. 19, 2016), the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals confronted a labor union’s First Amendment challenge to a town
ordinance in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, which, as construed and applied, prohibited
the display of giant inflatable rats and cats used by unions during wage disputes
to the extent they were “staked to the ground on the public way.” 2016 WL 4410073, at *1.
In the district court,
the union had moved for a preliminary injunction, which the court denied, and
then entered summary judgment for the defendant town. Id. The union appealed. Id. However,
without resolving the merits of the appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed and
remanded for a determination as to whether the union’s claim was moot, since
the union had not requested an award of damages. Id. at *1-2.
Whether the dispute was moot was an issue that neither the
parties nor the district court had considered. Id. at *1. As the
Seventh Circuit noted in its opinion, however, by the time the district court entered
summary judgment, the construction project that led to the use of the
demonstrative rats and cats had been completed and the union was no longer
picketing. Id. Also complicating the
mootness analysis was the fact that the language of the ordinance had changed
between the district court’s denial of the union’s motion for preliminary
injunction and the entry of summary judgment. Id. at *2.
As the Seventh
Circuit put it, “[w]e cannot decide this suit on the merits without being
confident that we have a justiciable controversy.” Id. at *2. A controversy is still considered “live”
if it is capable of repetition. Id.
at *1-2. For a case to remain live because it is capable of
repetition, the Court clarified, “there must be ‘a reasonable expectation that
the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.’ ” Id. at *1 (quoting Weinstein v.
Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975)). Despite counsel for the union’s
statement at oral argument that a dispute “might crop up again” if the union
decides to demonstrate against a future construction project, the Court found
that the record failed to contain any information about this likelihood. 2016
WL 4410073, at *1.
The Court further noted that, even if such a construction
project in Grand Chute is built and a labor dispute arises, this particular
suit may still be moot “if the controversy about that future project would not
evade review.” Id. The Court
continued, “Labor disputes are often short-term affairs, but many are
long-lived,” and only the possibility of damages – which the
union did not seek in this case – keeps a case alive when the project and resulting
dispute have ended. Id.
Remanding for the district court to “take another look at it,”
the Seventh Circuit explained: “If the Union persists in abjuring damages, the district
court must determine whether the probability of a fresh dispute between this
union and Grand Chute is high enough—and the risk that it would be over too
quickly to allow judicial review also high enough—to satisfy the ‘capable of
repetition yet evading review’ proviso to the mootness doctrine.” Id. at *2. The Court also instructed the
district court to address the validity of the town’s current ordinances, rather
than the version that was changed before the entry of summary judgment. Id.
Justice Posner authored
both a concurrence and a dissent, observing that “[a]ppellate courts should try
to make the first appeal in a case the last and order a remand only when the
need for further proceedings at the trial level is imperative.” Id. at *4 (Posner, J., concurring and
dissenting). In Justice Posner’s opinion, the balance of the evidence was
“clear enough” to justify a decision that the union’s constitutional right of
free speech was violated. Id.
DISCLAIMER: The Appellate Lawyers Association does not provide legal services or legal advice. Discussions of legal principles and authority, including, but not limited to, constitutional provisions, statutes, legislative enactments, court rules, case law, and common-law doctrines are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice.