638 F.3d 1004
8th Cir.2011Background
- This is an appeal by the NFL and related parties challenging a district court order issued April 25, 2011.
- The NFL sought a temporary stay pending appeal under Eighth Circuit Rule 27A(b)(4) of the district court’s order.
- The panel granted a temporary administrative stay to allow time to consider the merits of the stay motion.
- Judge Bye dissented, arguing that the stay was inappropriate absent an emergency and irreparable harm.
- The dissent emphasized that the NFL faced no irreparable harm shown and contrasted the situation with true emergencies (e.g., imminent removal or execution).
- The district court’s order and the NFL’s post-injunction operational plans were alleged to be non-emergency consequences that could be remedied after a full review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a temporary administrative stay was proper. | NFL contends emergency justification under Rule 27A(b)(4). | Panel concludes emergency situation exists to warrant administrative stay pending appeal. | Temporary administrative stay granted. |
| Whether the NFL demonstrated irreparable harm justifying a stay. | NFL will suffer irreparable harm from district order taking effect. | NFL failed to show irreparable harm sufficient for a stay. | Dissenting view: NFL did not show irreparable harm; decision not to grant stay would be appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 841 F.2d 230 (8th Cir. 1988) (describes grant of temporary stay to consider stay pending appeal)
- Cobell v. Norton, 2004 WL 603456 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (administrative stay procedure for reviewing stays pending appeal)
- Arnold v. Garlock, Inc., 278 F.3d 426 (5th Cir. 2001) (describing implementation of temporary stay to permit time to consider stay)
- Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 841 F.2d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (entry of temporary administrative stay to permit full consideration of motions)
- McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 79 F.3d 1014 (10th Cir. 1996) (emergency situations underpin Rule 27(c) rationale)
- Arrow Transp. Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 372 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court 1963) (emergency justification for stays in emergency contexts)