WILSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I strongly dissent from the majority’s decision to deny the request for an injunction pursuant to the All Writs Act and the request for a preliminary injunction. First, Plaintiffs have demonstrated their entitlement to a preliminary injunction. Second, the denial of Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction frustrates Congress’s intent, which is to maintain the status quo by keeping Theresa Schiavo alive until the federal courts have a new and adequate opportunity to consider the constitutional issues raised by Plaintiffs. The entire purpose for the statute was to give the federal courts an opportunity to consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims with a fresh set of eyes. Denial of Plaintiffs’ petition cuts sharply against that intent, which is evident to me from the language of the statute, as well as the swift and unprecedented manner of its enactment. Theresa Schiavo’s death, which is imminent, effectively ends the litigation without a fair opportunity to fully consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims. We should, at minimum, grant Plaintiffs’ All Writs Petition for emergency injunctive relief. First, I note that there is no precedent that prohibits our granting of this petition. Second, mindful of equitable principles, the extraordinary circumstances presented by this appeal require that we grant the petition to preserve federal jurisdiction and permit the opportunity to give Plaintiffs’ claims the full and meaningful review they deserve. In considering this extraordinary case, I am mindful that “[t]he essence of In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we adopted as 1 binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. 12 equity jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case. Flexibility rather than rigidity has distinguished it. The qualities of mercy and practicality have made equity the instrument for nice adjustment and reconciliation between the public interest and private needs as well as between competing private claims.” Swann v. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 15 (1971) (citations omitted). Keeping those principles firmly in mind, “mercy and practicality” compel us to grant the relief requested. I. All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 The All Writs Act provides: “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Federal courts have “both the inherent power and the constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction . . . to carry out Article III functions.” Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.3d 1069, 1074 (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (emphasis added). Toward that end, the All Writs Act permits federal courts to protect their jurisdiction with regards to “not only ongoing proceedings, but potential future proceedings.” Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1099 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted); ITT Comm. Devel. Corp. v. Barton, 569 F.2d 1351, 1359 n.19 (5th Cir. 1978) (“When potential jurisdiction 1 exists, a federal court may issue status quo orders to ensure that once its
THANK YOU very much for posting this.
I didn't see it.
"The entire purpose for the statute was to give the federal courts an opportunity to consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims with a fresh set of eyes. Denial of Plaintiffs’ petition cuts sharply against that intent, which is evident to me from the language of the statute, as well as the swift and unprecedented manner of its enactment. Theresa Schiavo’s death, which is imminent, effectively ends the litigation without a fair opportunity to fully consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims. We should, at minimum, grant Plaintiffs’ All Writs Petition for emergency injunctive relief. First, I note that there is no precedent that prohibits our granting of this petition. Second, mindful of equitable principles, the extraordinary circumstances presented by this appeal require that we grant the petition to preserve federal jurisdiction and permit the opportunity to give Plaintiffs’ claims the full and meaningful review they deserve."
Wilson is the only sane one, who rules based on the law, in the entire Kangaroo rubber-stamp court.
God bless him.
The law was on Terri's side, the judicial tyrants weren't.