“Ripeness” & Declaratory Judgments in Cardinal Chemical Ripeness is a threshold requirement for DJ Interpreted the same as with preventive injunctions CC Facts: Morton files lawsuit against CC for patent infringement; CC denies infringement & counterclaims that patent is invalid. Fed. Cir. finds for CC on infringement issue. BUT dismisses the counterclaim re invalidity as “moot” because the infringement issue is no longer pending. SCT reverses the Fed. Cir. on its mootness ruling – Why? Is there any reason to hear CC on the validity issue now that the infringement dispute has gone away? Is there any “ripe” controversy?

A situation unripe for declaratory judgment:  Wycoff : Plaintiff (hauling business) seeks a declaration that it is engaged in interstate commerce. SCT says P’s request for a declaratory judgment is not ripe because P asked for a declaration of status rather than a declaration of rights.  What could P have done to make the Court view this as an actual ripe controversy?

Court discretion to deny a declaratory judgment Uniform DJA/Mo. Rev. Stat  The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding.  When will a DJ likely NOT terminate uncertainty?  P wants a declaration that Y’s will was invalid due to undue influence.  As a beneficiary, P would normally be able to do this in a will contest. But Y is still alive. And even if undue influence occurred, she could still change the will so a DJ re this will wouldn’t help.  Often in such cases, you can argue that the particular dispute simply isn’t ripe.

Differences between preventive injunctions & declaratory judgments ( Wallace example): Injunction Dec. Judgment What must P prove?1) Irreparable injury 2) Ripeness 1) No irreparable injury required 2) Ripeness What does the order say?Wallace shall stop collecting the gas privilege tax from the railroads. The gas privilege tax is unconstitutional as applied to the railroads. What if D ignores the order or grabs P’s property for unpaid taxes (e.g., as in Wallace )? 1) D is in contempt 2) Injunction has res judicata effect 1) D is not in contempt – BUT can get an injunction to enforce the DJ (28 USC ' 2202 & Mo. Rev. Stat ) 2) DJ has res judicata effect

What is contempt?  Contempt is the court’s power to protect itself and its orders  It generally is used in two situations  A party or witness (contemnor) acts disrespectfully toward a judicial body (i.e., disruption in the courtroom, etc.)  A party violates a court order that applies to that party (e.g., an injunction)

Kinds of contempt – civil compensatory contempt  Compensates non-contemnor for its losses/contemnor’s gains due to contemnor’s violation of court order  Responsibility for proof of harm lies w/ non-contemnor  Can be imposed whether violation is willful or merely inadvertent  Initiated by motion of aggrieved party – civil procedures apply  Movant must show violation of order by clear and convincing evidence

Kinds of contempt – coercive civil contempt  Order designed to coerce contemnor to comply with court order in the future.  Typical methods of coercion - Court jails contemnor until compliance OR fines for every day of non-compliance (fine is usually payable to the gov’t)  Coercive civil contempt is viewed as remedial rather than as punishment  Contemnor “holds the keys to the jailhouse door”  Civil procedures typically apply ( But see Bagwell )  Aggrieved party typically initiates by motion UNLESS it is a summary contempt (e.g., in-court refusal to testify) where court is vindicating own rights

Kinds of contempt – criminal contempt  Designed to punish past conduct – vindicate court’s authority  Characterized by the imposition of a determinate fine or jail sentence as a result of past behavior – all fines payable to the state  “Intent” requirement – contempt imposed only for willful violations  Willful = purpose or knowledge  Most (but not all) of the procedural protections applicable in criminal proceedings apply  PBRD, jury trial for certain $ amounts or sentences, double jeopardy...

UMW v. Bagwell – facts o Longstanding labor disputes between mining companies and union. o Trial court entered injunction prohibiting various activities by union – obstruction of ingress/egress to company facilities, jackrocking, large pickets at certain sites o o 1 st contempt hearing – court found 72 separate violations and issued $642,000 fine. o Court also announced a prospective fine schedule - $100K for future violent breaches of injunction & $20K for future nonviolent breaches. o At subsequent hearings (7 of them) – court found 400 separate violations of the injunction; imposed $64,000,000 in fines - $52,000,000 payable to the government, the rest payable to the companies. Civil procedures were used, except for PBRD requirement.

UMW v. Bagwell – criminal or coercive contempt How do we characterize the contempt fines imposed by the trial court judge – criminal or civil in nature? o 1 st set of fines -- $642,000 o Look criminal – determinate fines for past actions & payable to gov’t o 2 nd set of fines -- $52 million o Va courts – fines are coercive – civil procedures are okay o SCT – fines are criminal – criminal procedures should have been used before imposition

SCT reasoning re Bagwell fines: Classic Coercive Contempt: 1) Court issues order: “Disclose your source.” 2) Reporter who is subject to the order violates it; is found in contempt; jailed/fined daily until complies with order. Report can avoid each new fine/imprisonment by complying. Bagwell conditional fines: 1) Court issues injunction prohibiting certain destructive behavior by union. 2) Court threatens penalties for future violations. 3) Union violates order; is found in contempt; previously threatened fines are imposed. These latter fines look like determinate criminal fines once imposed even if they look coercive when threatened. Union doesn’t have opportunity to avoid fines once imposed

When are criminal procedures required with what sometimes looks like coercive contempt: 1. Can the fine be purged after a contempt finding?  Bagwell – no  Reporter/source -yes 2. Is the contempt direct (i.e., in the courtroom)?  Bagwell – no  Reporter/source - yes 3. Is the court’s order that was violated simple or complex?  Bagwell – complex  Reporter/source - simple

Run-of-the mill coercive contempt – the big question Can the contempt operate perpetually if the contemnor refuses to comply? General rule re release of contemnor: Court should release contemnor from coercive contempt when (1) compliance is no longer needed OR (2) the contempt no longer has a coercive effect. Anyanwu standard: Is there a substantial likelihood that continued commitment will accomplish the purpose of the court order? If yes – court can maintain confinement If no – court should release contemnor It is contemnor’s burden to show that the contempt has lost its coercive impact.

How does a judge determine that the coercive order has lost it’s impact?  Is it enough that the contemnor avows to “never give in”?  Probably not – refusal to comply is alone insufficient  So what more is needed?  How do factors such as “age, state of health, & length of confinement” relate to contemnor’s credibility?  “Each case must be decided on an independent evaluation of all of the particular facts. Age, state of health and length of confinement are all factors to be weighed, but the critical question is whether or not further confinement will serve any coercive purpose.” Catena v. Seidl (quoted in Anyanwu ) Fact-bound & context-specific inquiries

How does a judge determine contemnor’s stubbornness has become irrevocable – cont’d How relevant is the form of testimony re contemnor’s stubbornness? Live testimony vs. affidavits Personal testimony vs. third-party testimony Psychiatric testimony? Did the form of Anyanwu’s evidence (along with his actions) help or hurt his claim regarding the coercive effect of the contempt?

Impossibility as a defense Impossibility of compliance with a court order is a defense to contempt (both criminal and civil coercive). It is the contemnor’s burden to prove impossibility How do we determine when it is impossible for the contemnor to comply? Often it’s just a matter of credibility – does the contemnor’s story hold up to scrutiny? What if the contemnor is partly responsible for why she can’t comply? Courts are unlikely to allow the defense. Court will probably hold a criminal contempt hearing instead since no amount of coercion is likely to work.