When the time comes to write the story of public housing in the United States, the thirty-plus year saga of this litigation and the experience of the City of Chicago will surely feature prominently. The case began in 1966, when Dorothy Gautreaux and others filed a class action claiming that the Chicago Housing Authority (“CHA”) had intentionally perpetuated racial segregation both in its tenant assignment practices and in its siting policies. In 1969, the district court found for the plaintiff class,
Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Auth.,
I
In order to understand why we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, it is necessary to summarize briefly the history of this litigation. Prior to the entry of the 1969 decree, the Gautreaux class showed that the CHA had effectively designated four *953 housing projects, built in majority-white Chicago neighborhoods, as “white,” and that it had reserved the remainder of its facilities for non-whites. Using a discriminatory pre-clearance procedure and quotas, the CHA restricted the number of African-American families it assigned to the four “white” family housing projects. As a result, despite the fact that 90% of the families on the CHA’s waiting list were African-American, African-Americans comprised less than 10% of the families in those four projects. The picture was the opposite in the other projects: there, the tenants were (as of 1969) 99% African-American, and 99.5% of the units were located in neighborhoods that were majority African-American.
A. The 1969 Injunction and the 1987 Receivership Order
The
Gautreaux II
injunction divided Cook County into “Limited Areas,” in which 30% or more of the population was African-American, and the “General Area,” which was the rest of the county. Initially, it required the CHA to build three dwelling units in the General Area for every one unit it constructed in the Limited Areas; later, that ratio was changed to one-to-one. The injunction defined a dwelling unit as a residential unit “which is to be initially made available to and occupied by a low-income, non-elderly family, subsequent to the date [of the injunction], directly or indirectly by or through CHA....”
Gautreaux II,
For the next 18 years, the district court patiently waited in vain for the CHA to develop what has become known as “scattered site housing.” In 1987, it finally appointed a receiver (Daniel E. Levin and The Habitat Company), to whom it assigned the responsibility for developing scattered site housing on the CHA’s behalf. Gautreaux v. Pierce, Order of Aug. 14, 1987. The receivership order applies both to housing projects that were underway at the time and to “all CHA non-elderly public housing development programs which may in the future be authorized by HUD during the pendency of [the case against the CHA].” Id. at 2. The receiver is authorized to exercise
all powers of CHA respecting the scattered site program necessary and incident to the development and administration of such program, including: (a) Making all determinations governing the scattered site program in compliance with prior and future orders of this Court, including without limitation (1) submission to HUD of applications for funding, development programs and other documents....
Id. at 2-3. The receivership order also directs the CHA to give the receiver its full cooperation. As with the injunction, the CHA has not asked that the receivership order be modified or terminated, and it remains in effect.
B. The Current Controversy
In 1992, Congress passed a new public housing funding program called HOPE VI, an acronym for “Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere.” 42 U.S.C. § 1437Í (note). The program seeks to revitalize severely distressed or obsolete public housing developments by funding a mixture of local public housing authority activities on a competitive grant basis. Local public housing authorities may use *954 HOPE VI grant monies for a variety of purposes, including, among other things, planning revitalization projects, demolition, renovation, providing Section 8 rent vouchers, social services, and (of greatest interest here) building replacement dwellings. To the extent that obsolete public housing is eliminated through HOPE VI, replacement units can be made available through a combination of Section 8 vouchers, new construction, renovation, and other acquisitions. Under HOPE VI, any demolished housing units must “be located in up to 3 separately defined areas containing the community’s most severely distressed projects.” Id. It does not similarly restrict the locations in which replacement units may be built. Id.
In 1993, the CHA prepared the first of several funding proposals it has submitted to HUD under the HOPE VI program. It took this step unilaterally — that is to say, without any input from the receiver. In the application, however, it represented to HUD that the location of any replacement units would comply with the locational requirements of the Gautreaux injunction. The proposal was successful: HUD awarded it $50,000,000 for the Cabrini-Green Redevelopment Project. When the receiver learned of the existence of the application, it approached the CHA and asked to become involved in the HOPE VI projects, insofar as they would implicate the receiver’s authority over the construction of replacement housing. The discussions that followed did not resolve this question definitively. Instead, the CHA was inconsistent in later grant applications. In 1996, it received one grant for the rehabilitation of its ABLA and Henry Horner developments on the basis of a proposal prepared in concert with the receiver, but in the same year it received another grant for the Robert Taylor Homes on the basis of a proposal it prepared independently (after erroneously advising the receiver that no replacement units would be involved).
This spotty cooperation between the CHA and the receiver turned to outright hostility sometime in late 1996. In September 1997, the CHA filed an emergency motion with the district court, asking it for an order clarifying that the 1969 injunction did not extend to any aspect of the HOPE VI program. In February 1998 (the “February order”), the district court instead held that the portion of HOPE VI funds dedicated to the construction of dwelling units fell squarely within the plain language of the injunction, and that any replacement units were therefore subject to the injunction’s locational requirements.
Despite this order, the CHA continued to refuse to cooperate with the receiver or to release the information necessary to allow the receiver to play a role in the HOPE VI grant application due June 29, 1998. In May 1998, the receiver accordingly asked the court to compel the CHA’s cooperation. The court granted this motion (the “May order”), explaining that since “HOPE VI is a ‘non-elderly public housing development program! ] • ■ ■ authorized during the pendency of the Gau-treaux litigation, ... it therefore fits entirely within the Receiver’s jurisdiction.”
Finally, in August 1998, the receiver filed a second emergency motion to compel the CHA’s cooperation with the 1987 receivership order and the district court’s February and May orders. It took this action after it learned through a news report that the CHA had unilaterally negotiated a settlement with Cabrini-Green residents who had brought a lawsuit against the CHA, see
Cabrini-Green Local Advisory Council v. Chicago Housing Auth,
The CHA appeals from each of these three 1998 orders. A motions panel of this court denied the CHA’s motion to stay the February and May orders on May 29, 1998, and reserved for the consideration of the merits panel the motion of the Gau-treaux plaintiffs to dismiss the appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
II
The CHA argues that this court has appellate jurisdiction over the February order both because (1) it sets forth the steps the CHA must take to comply with the injunction and is, according to the CHA, therefore a final judgment within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291; and (2) it is a modification of an injunction, making it an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The May order, it claims, is within our pendent appellate jurisdiction. Finally, it argues that the August order is a new injunction, appealable independently under § 1292(a)(1).
Though they dispute our independent jurisdiction over the February and May orders, the
Gautreaux
class and the receiver
1
now take the position — agreeing with the CHA — that we have jurisdiction over the August order. As they explained at oral argument, they too regard the August order as a fresh injunction, because it keeps the CHA from presenting the
Cabrini-Green
settlement to another judge of the district court (the Hon. David Coar) for approval. To allow us to reach the merits of this appeal, they next contend that the August order is “inextricably intertwined” with the February and May orders, thereby bringing those two earlier orders within our pendent appellate jurisdiction. The agreement of the parties with respect to our jurisdiction does not, of course, resolve the matter. E.g.,
United States v. County of Cook,
A. The February Order
1. Section 1291 Jurisdiction
The February order does not dispose of all claims as to all parties. Normally, that fact alone would demonstrate that it does not qualify as a final judgment for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
E.g., United States v. Davenport,
The issue in ACORN was how the State of Illinois would comply with an injunction ordering it to implement the motor-voter law, which it had ignored based on its belief that the law was unconstitutional. The district court held that the state had to comply with the law, and Illinois then proposed some implementing regulations. The district court entered a post-injunction order holding Illinois’ proposed regulations invalid and asking the parties to brief some remaining issues. Illinois then appealed this post-injunction order, which raised the question of appellate jurisdiction. In discussing the finality require *956 ment of § 1291, Chief Judge Posner explained:
[We] treat the postjudgment proceeding as a freestanding litigation, in effect treating the final judgment as the first rather than the last order in the case. Our decision last June [rejecting Illinois’ constitutional challenge to the motor-voter law] kicked off a postjudgment proceeding that will end, unless the parties reach an agreement, with a judicial order setting forth the steps that Illinois must take to comply with the injunction that it obey the motor-voter law. That order will be appealable as a final decision under section 1291; interim orders will be appealable only if they meet the criteria for the appealability of interlocutory orders.
Id. at 306.
By analogy to
ACORN,
the CHA claims the February order is final because it sets forth the steps the CHA must take to comply with the injunction. But as the above passage illustrates,
ACORN
does not stand for the proposition that an order outlining the steps to comply with a prior injunction always qualifies as a new final judgment. Instead, it held only that the post-judgment order there was final because it conclusively resolved the parties’ claims in the context of that case. This point was underscored in
Bogará v. Wright,
Any direction the February order gave the CHA about how to comply with the 1969 injunction did not serve to bring finality to this litigation. Under ACORN and Bogará, therefore, § 1291 does not confer jurisdiction over this appeal.
2. Section 1292(a)(1) Jurisdiction
The CHA has not requested a writ of mandamus, nor did the district court certify this ease for an immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The only possible alternative ground for jurisdiction is thus 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which permits appeals from orders “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions.... ” The next question is whether the February order does any of those things to an injunction, or if, on the other hand, it is a mere clarification or reiteration of a standing injunction that does not fall within the scope of § 1292(a)(1). See
ACORN,
This court has repeatedly held that it will look beyond labels such as “clarifica
*957
tion” or “modification” to consider the actual effect of the order.
E.g., Motorola, Inc. v. Computer Displays Int'l, Inc.,
Two requirements for appeals under § 1292(a)(1) dealing with post-judgment rulings relating to injunctive decrees emerge from our decisions. First,
Motorola
established that a modification (however labeled) occurs only when a court substantially alters the pre-existing legal relationship of the parties.
Applying these standards to the February order, we conclude that it is not an appealable modification of an injunction. The district court did not, for example, rule that CHA programs other than the administration and construction of dwelling units (like the provision of Section 8 rent vouchers, the management of CHA properties preexisting the injunction, or the conditions under which social services are to be supplied) fell within the sweep of the 1969 injunction. Such extreme actions would be modifications even if the district court labeled them mere clarifications.
Cf. United States v. Board of Sch. Comm’rs,
B. The August Order
The only theory under which the parties have urged us to recognize appellate jurisdiction over the August order is as a fresh injunction, appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). As before, however, this court must look beyond the “injunction” label of the order to see if jurisdiction is proper. See,
e.g., Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Co'rp.,
The August order does nothing more than reassert the court’s prior orders: it tells the CHA that it must continue to comply with the 1969 injunction and February order specifically with respect to the HOPE VI revitalization project at Cabrini-Green, and that it must involve the receiver in any negotiations. Because the proposed settlement with the Cabrini-Green Local Advisory Council addressed, in part, the construction of replacement housing, the receiver was the only party with authority to negotiate the provisions and was therefore indispensable to the negotiations. That the August order also directs the CHA to renegotiate rather than place an illegitimate agreement before another court changes nothing, because that simply ensures that the CHA does not profit from its non-compliance with existing court orders.
Cf. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ.,
C. The May Order
Both parties have argued that the otherwise unappealable May order is so inextricably intertwined with the August order as to trigger our pendent appellate jurisdiction. In addition, the
Gautreaux
plaintiffs offer pendent appellate jurisdiction as a theory that would support the appeal of the February order. Because we have found no appellate jurisdiction over either the August or the February orders, however, pendent appellate jurisdiction cannot be marshaled to bring the May order (or the February order on plaintiffs’ theory) before the court. See,
e.g., People ex rel. Hartigan v. Peters,
Ill
If the CHA is displeased with the 1969 injunction, the receivership order, or the recent district court orders flowing from them, then it should seek to modify or terminate any or all of them. Until it does so — or until the district court obviously departs from the path of its own precedent — this court will not have appellate jurisdiction.
We therefore Dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
Notes
. Although the CHA disputes the receiver's right to participate in the appeal, the district court granted the receiver permission to appeal on May 20, 1998. This safeguards the receiver's status before this court. See Holland v. Sterling Enters., Inc., Ill F.2d 1288, 1291 (7th Cir. 1985).