ST. LOUIS (Legal Newsline) - Citing an influential appellate judge’s declaration that “the era of micromanagement of government functions by the federal courts is over,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has dissolved a proposed class action on behalf of future protestors against the City of St. Louis and put a strict time limit on a temporary injunction limiting how police can enforce unlawful-assembly ordinances.
A federal judge imposed strict rules on St. Louis police in November 2017 after widespread rioting erupted in the wake of the acquittal of officer Jason Stockley in the shooting of Anthony Lamar Smith. Police were threatened with contempt of court if they ordered protestors to disperse unless the protestors were “acting in concert to pose an imminent threat to use force or violence.”
The order by U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry also prohibited police from using chemical agents against protestors or arresting them without giving an “unambiguous warning” first and an opportunity to disperse on their own.
Judge Perry also certified a class action on behalf of anyone “who will in the future participate in or observe non-violent public demonstrations” or who records the police at demonstrations. St. Louis appealed the class certification and sought to end the injunction.
The Eighth Circuit, in an April 27 order, said Judge Perry has delayed for too long a trial at which lawyers for the protestors and the city can air the facts for or against a permanent order dictating how St. Louis police can manage protests. The appeals court gave the district judge until Oct. 31 either to either make the injunction permanent or withdraw it.
The court also dissolved the class action, saying it was too early to decide whether the disparate group of protestors who sued had enough complaints in common to proceed as a class. One had deliberately broken the law, the appeals court noted, while another was arrested for filming police and another said he was merely an observer of the protests.
The appeals court described the tension between judicial oversight of local government activities and the separation of powers, citing the 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Horne v. Flores, which held courts must take into account changed circumstances when deciding whether to end such court orders. The Eighth Circuit also quoted Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner’s decision in Chicago United Industries v. Chicago, in which the judge criticized temporary restraining orders with “vague and encompassing provisions apt to invite contempt proceedings” that “control government functions.”
In the St. Louis case, Judge Perry originally said a trial would be set for August 2019, but then the lawsuit went into mediation, which was unsuccessful. Plaintiff lawyers also said they needed more discovery to prepare for trial. If plaintiff lawyers ask for more discovery on remand, the appeals court said, the district court must “dissolve the preliminary injunction forthwith.”