Tomas Rey, et al. v. LCMC Health Care Partners, L.L.C., et al.

In this suit for both injunctive relief and damages, the district court granted partial summary judgment, dismissing all of the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief but allowing a damages claim to go to trial. Plaintiffs, the petitioners here, appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), which gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction over appeals from “[i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States * * * refusing * * * injunctions[.]” The Fifth Circuit dismissed petitioners’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the order only had the “practical effect” of refusing an injunction and that petitioners therefore needed to demonstrate that the order “might have a serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence” and that it can be “effectually challenged only by immediate appeal.” Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84 (1981) (quotation marks omitted). But the court recognized that “[o]ther circuits take a different approach to this issue” and hold that an order that rejects claims for injunctive relief is inherently an order “refusing” an injunction and is hence appealable without any additional showing. Pet. App. 6a & n.2. The question presented is: Is an interlocutory order that rejects a party’s claim for injunctive relief an order “refusing” an injunction that is appealable as of right under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), or does such an order only have the “practical effect” of denying an injunction such that the appellant must make the additional showings required by Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84 (1981), to establish appellate jurisdiction?