Also known as: injunctive relief · declaratory relief · equitable relief · declaratory judgment
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Equitable or declaratory remedies by which a court orders a party to act or refrain from acting or declares the legal rights of the parties without awarding damages. The remedies are available when monetary damages would be inadequate or when prospective compliance with law is at issue.
Insight Consulting implemented a uniform hiring policy that excluded applicants with certain criminal records. A group of rejected applicants filed a class action in federal court seeking to enjoin the policy and obtain a declaration that it violated federal antidiscrimination law. Because the policy applied generally to the class, the court certified the class under Rule 23(b)(2) and granted final injunctive relief binding on the company as a whole.
Ibrahim Iqbal, a director of Imperial Motors, learned of a promising supplier contract and pursued it personally without first presenting it to the board. When shareholders sued for breach of duty, the court held that the opportunity could not be the subject of equitable relief because Iqbal had followed the statutory procedures for disclaiming the corporation's interest.
Iris Irons purchased land subject to a recorded servitude requiring maintenance of a shared driveway. When a neighbor began blocking access, Irons sued for a declaration that the servitude remained enforceable and for an injunction ordering removal of the obstruction. The court considered the nature of the servitude and the parties' conduct in selecting the appropriate combination of declaratory and injunctive remedies.
Idina Iverson, a state university employee, sued the university president in federal court alleging ongoing violations of federal free-speech rights through a campus speech code. She sought only prospective injunctive relief ordering the president to cease enforcement. The court permitted the suit to proceed because the president was treated as stripped of state authority when acting unconstitutionally.
Ivy Ibarra, a physician, challenged a state criminal statute restricting certain medical procedures. She sought a declaratory judgment that the statute was unconstitutional and an injunction preventing its enforcement. The court addressed the request for declaratory and injunctive relief after determining that the controversy was justiciable.
In March 1970, Jane Roe, a single woman residing in Dallas County, Texas, instituted a federal action against the District Attorney of the county. She sought a declaratory judgment that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were unconstitutional on their face. She also sought an injunction restraining enforcement of the statutes. Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant. She wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion performed by a competent licensed physician under safe clinical conditions. She was unable to obtain a legal abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by continuation of the pregnancy. She could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction to secure a legal abortion. James Hubert Hallford, a licensed physician, sought and was granted leave to intervene in Roe's action. In his complaint he alleged that he had been arrested previously for violations of the Texas abortion statutes. Two such prosecutions were pending against him in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County. He described conditions of patients who came to him seeking abortions. He claimed that for many cases he was unable to determine whether they fell within or outside the exception recognized by Article 1196 of the Texas Penal Code. John and Mary Doe, a married couple, filed a companion complaint also naming the District Attorney as defendant. The Does alleged that they were a childless couple. Mrs. Doe was suffering from a neural-chemical disorder. Her physician had advised her to avoid pregnancy until her condition materially improved. She had discontinued use of birth control pills pursuant to medical advice. If she should become pregnant she would want to terminate the pregnancy by an abortion performed by a competent licensed physician under safe clinical conditions. The two actions were consolidated and heard together by a duly convened three-judge district court for the Northern District of Texas. Upon the filing of affidavits, motions were made for dismissal and for summary judgment. The court held that Roe and members of her class and Dr. Hallford had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. The Does had failed to allege facts sufficient to state a present controversy and did not have standing. It concluded that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were void on their face. The court dismissed the Does' complaint while denying injunctive relief. The plaintiffs Roe and Doe and the intervenor Hallford appealed to the Supreme Court from that part of the District Court's judgment denying the injunction. The defendant District Attorney cross-appealed from the grant of declaratory relief. Both sides also took protective appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That court ordered the appeals held in abeyance pending decision by the Supreme Court.
View caseInertia Dynamics faced a citizen suit alleging future harm to wildlife from planned construction. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the project. The court dismissed the action because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the concrete, imminent injury required for standing to obtain such relief.
In 1973 Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act to protect species of animals against threats to their continuing existence caused by man. In 1978 the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service issued a joint regulation interpreting section 7(a)(2) to require federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of the Interior on actions taken in foreign nations. In 1986 the Secretary promulgated a revised regulation that limited the consultation obligation to actions within the United States or on the high seas. Shortly after the 1986 regulation took effect, Defenders of Wildlife and other environmental organizations filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Secretary of the Interior. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the regulation was invalid as to its geographic scope and an injunction requiring the Secretary to promulgate a new regulation mandating consultation for foreign projects. The complaint alleged that the absence of consultation would increase the rate of extinction of endangered and threatened species. The complaint further alleged that some of the organizations' members observed these species both domestically and abroad. Respondents supported their allegations with affidavits from two members. Joyce Kelly stated that she had traveled to Egypt in 1986, observed the habitat of the endangered Nile crocodile, and intended to return. Kelly further stated that she would suffer harm from the United States role in the rehabilitation of the Aswan High Dam. Amy Skilbred stated that she had traveled to Sri Lanka in 1981, observed the habitat of endangered species including the Asian elephant and leopard at the site of the Mahaweli project funded by the Agency for International Development, and intended to return. Skilbred admitted she had no current plans to return because of a civil war. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. On remand the District Court denied the Secretary's motion for summary judgment on standing. The District Court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment on the merits and enjoined the Secretary from applying the regulation to foreign countries. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseIt is appropriate when the defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, making final relief respecting the class as a whole suitable. Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is designed for such cases seeking classwide injunctive or declaratory remedies.
Supporting sources
Yes. A suit for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief may proceed in federal court against a state officer to enjoin ongoing violations of federal law, because the officer is treated as stripped of state authority when acting unconstitutionally.
Supporting sources
Yes. A servitude may be enforced by any appropriate remedy, including declaratory judgment and injunctions. Courts consider the nature and purpose of the servitude, the conduct of the parties, and the costs and benefits of enforcement when choosing the remedy.
Supporting sources
Syllabus This is an action by a pregnant single woman (Roe) for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the Texas abortion laws, which make it a crime to procure or attempt an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life. A…