CITY OF LOS ANGELES Et Al. v. LYONS
Headline: Court temporarily pauses lower-court injunction limiting Los Angeles police choke-holds, allowing the city to seek Supreme Court review and potentially continue disputed tactics while the petition is decided.
Holding: A Justice granted a temporary stay of the appeals court’s order affirming the injunction that limited Los Angeles police choke-holds, pausing that injunction while the city files a timely petition for Supreme Court review.
- Temporarily pauses injunction blocking police choke-holds pending Supreme Court review.
- Allows Los Angeles police to continue current holds for months while petition is considered.
- Requires city to file petition for Supreme Court review by Dec 9, 1981.
Summary
Background
The dispute is between the City of Los Angeles and a man who was once placed in a police “choke-hold.” The man sued, and the District Court ruled that two specific holds (the carotid artery and bar arm holds) may not be used except when death or serious bodily harm is threatened. The District Court also required a written training program, reporting any permitted uses within forty-eight hours, and orderly recordkeeping. The Court of Appeals affirmed that preliminary injunction in an August 17, 1981 per curiam opinion. The original complaint was filed on February 7, 1977; the city’s petition for review to the Supreme Court would be due by December 9, 1981.
Reasoning
The core question the Justice focused on was whether the man had the legal right to bring this lawsuit now — that is, whether he had “standing.” The Justice explained that the Ninth Circuit’s views on standing and on claims that are “capable of repetition, yet evading review” differ from this Court’s earlier decisions. The city warned that the injunction could make officers less able to handle violent arrestees. The man said the city could comply by improving training. The Justice declined to decide which prediction would prove correct, but found enough doubt about the appeals court’s approach and sufficient fairness or “equities” favoring the city to justify a temporary stay while the city seeks review.
Real world impact
The order temporarily pauses the injunction that limited police use of the two choke-holds, which may allow Los Angeles officers to keep using those techniques for a few additional months while the Supreme Court considers whether to hear the case. The ruling is not a final decision on the merits; it preserves the possibility of full review and could change if the Supreme Court later decides otherwise.
Dissents or concurrances
When the Court earlier declined review of an earlier appeals-court decision, three Justices dissented. The Justice issuing the stay said there is a real chance a fourth Justice would join those dissenters now, which could produce full Supreme Court review if the city files on time.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?