Gordon v. Holder
394 U.S. App. D.C. 158
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- PACT Act amended Jenkins Act to curb cigarette trafficking, ensure pre-paid taxes, and ban USPS shipments of cigarettes.
- Plaintiff Gordon is a Seneca Indian tobacco delivery seller who relies on mail/phone sales, with 95% of business online prior to the Act.
- Gordon filed a pre-enforcement challenge on June 28, 2010 seeking a TRO and preliminary injunction.
- District court denied relief citing lateness and public-interest concerns.
- Court reviews denial of a preliminary injunction de novo on the legal questions and for abuse of discretion on the factual/ethical weighing of factors.
- Court remands to permit proper consideration of the injunction factors and the issues of standing, due process/minimum contacts, and public-interest analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion denying pre-enforcement relief. | Gordon argues the filing was timely and that irreparable harm would occur without injunction. | Court viewed the filing as late and found no irreparable harm or improper justification. | Yes; district court abused discretion; remanded for proper weighing of factors. |
| Whether the district court meaningfully analyzed the four injunction factors. | Gordon contends the court failed to weigh likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest. | Court did not provide adequate reasoning on the factors. | Yes; remand required to perform and document factor analysis. |
| Whether the district court inadequately addressed the public interest. | Public-interest factor was given cursory treatment. | Court relied on a brief citation without full analysis. | Yes; remand to fully analyze public-interest factor. |
| Whether standing and due process/minimum contacts issues require further development on remand. | Gordon's standing and due process arguments raise separate questions. | These issues were not fully developed at the district court level. | Yes; remand to resolve standing and related due process/minimum contacts questions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction must balance four factors; clear standard for irreparable harm and public interest)
- Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C.Cir. 2006) (need for explicit legal findings when reviewing injunctions on de novo review)
- Unity08 v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 596 F.3d 861 (D.C.Cir. 2010) (pre-enforcement challenges relate to ripeness concerns in some contexts)
- Sabre, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 429 F.3d 1113 (D.C.Cir. 2005) (ripeness and timing considerations in regulatory challenges)
- Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1992) (distinct inquiries into due process and interstate burdens in national regulation)