Church of the Holy Light of Thequeen v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHURCH OF THE HOLY LIGHT OF No. 09-35770
THE QUEEN; et al.,
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-03095-PA
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Owen M. Panner, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 13, 2011 **
Portland, Oregon
Before: PREGERSON, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The United States appeals from the district court’s Amended Judgment. The
government does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that an outright
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
prohibition on the importation of Daime tea by the Church of the Holy Light of the
Queen violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§
2000bb to 2000bb-4. Instead, the government challenges only the scope of the
district court’s injunction, which in part enjoins the government from enforcing
certain regulations and corresponding statutory provisions set forth in the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-904. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate the injunction and remand.
While “[a] district court has considerable discretion in fashioning suitable
relief and defining the terms of an injunction,” Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. McCain
Foods, Ltd., 941 F.2d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 1991), “[t]here are limitations on this
discretion; an injunction must be narrowly tailored to give only the relief to which
plaintiffs are entitled,” Orantes-Hernandez v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 549, 558 (9th
Cir. 1990). “Injunctive relief . . . must be tailored to remedy the specific harm
alleged. An overbroad injunction is an abuse of discretion.” Stormans, Inc. v.
Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citation omitted) (quoting
Lamb-Weston, 941 F.2d at 974) (omission in original). The plaintiffs repeatedly
represented to the court and in discovery that they were not challenging any CSA
regulations and had “not alleged in the Complaint that the CSA violates their
rights.” The injunction is therefore overly broad because it reaches beyond the
scope of the complaint and enjoins government regulations that were explicitly
never challenged or litigated. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1141; Meinhold v. U.S.
Dept. of Defense, 34 F.3d 1469, 1480 (9th Cir. 1994); Thomas v. Cnty. of Los
Angeles, 978 F.2d 504, 510 (9th Cir. 1992).
The injunction is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions for the
district court to fashion an injunction limited in scope to its conclusion that the
government failed to show that its interests justify prohibiting outright the
Church’s importation of Daime tea solely for use at Church ceremonies. In other
words, the injunction should not reach more conduct than that which the district
court held violated RFRA.
VACATED and REMANDED.