United States v. Billingsley

The Department of Justice brought an action in federal court against the Dallas zoning committee for violation of the Fair Housing Act and moved for a preliminary injunction to restrain the committee from removing a footbridge. The district court granted the government's preliminary injunction. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded: 1. The Anti-Injunction Act under 28 U.S.C. �2283 applies; and 2. The government cannot avail itself of the exception for the United States when it seeks an injunction because of 42 U.S.C. �3612's explicit limitations on the remedial powers of the federal courts. The 5th Circuit vacated the district court's grant of the preliminary injunction. 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 09-40734, 08-19-2010

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

This case involves a dispute between, on the one hand, a married couple who own and occupy a home in Air Park subdivision (“the Picks”) and, on the other hand, that subdivision’s zoning and covenants compliance authority, viz., the Air Park — Dallas Zoning Committee, as well as its four members, Air Park GP, L.L.C., and Crow-Billingsley Air Park, Ltd. (collectively, “the Committee”) over a footbridge that the Picks installed on their property in violation of restrictive covenants. The Committee sought to enforce the covenants in state court, and the Picks filed a Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) counterclaim. The parties settled the lawsuit, but subsequently disagreed whether the settlement agreement required the Picks to remove the footbridge. The Committee sought to enforce the settlement agreement in the state court proceedings. After interpreting the settlement agreement in favor of the Committee, the state court mandated that the Picks remove the footbridge, which they have continually refused to do.

The Department of Justice (“the government”) then brought an action in federal court on behalf of the Picks, and against the Committee, for violation of the FHA, and quickly moved for a preliminary injunction to restrain the Committee from removing the footbridge. The Committee raised two defenses: First, the Committee claimed that the allegedly offending conduct was protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances,”*fn1 as defined by the Supreme Court through the Noerr- Pennington Doctrine.*fn2 Second, the Committee claimed that a federal court could not enjoin the Committee or the state court from litigation under the settlement agreement without violating the Anti-Injunction Act (“the Act”).*fn3 The district court declined to rule that either of these defenses was applicable and granted the government’s preliminary injunction. As we hold that the Anti-Injunction Act applies, we vacate the district court’s grant of the preliminary injunction.

United States v. Billingsley

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal