People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Gittens

Summary

The D.C. Circuit considered consolidated appeals arising from the District of Columbia’s rejection of an animal sculpture design submitted by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for the “Party Animals” public art exhibit. The court declined to reach the First Amendment merits because the exhibit had ended and it was unclear whether the district court’s $4,000 award was based on a constitutional violation or instead constituted a refund or restitution. The court dismissed two appeals, dismissed the preliminary-injunction appeal as moot, and remanded the damages appeal for clarification.

Holdings

1. The appeal from the preliminary injunction was moot because the Party Animals exhibit had ended and nothing remained to be enjoined through a permanent injunction.
2. The First Amendment controversy was not capable of repetition yet evading review.
3. The $4,000 award could preserve a live constitutional controversy only if the district court intended it as damages contingent on a First Amendment violation; the record was remanded for clarification.
4. The appeal from the November 2003 memorandum and order was dismissed because the order was not entered on a separate document and therefore was not an effective judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appeal from the preliminary injunction was moot after the five-month public art exhibit ended.
2. Whether the First Amendment controversy was capable of repetition yet evading review.
3. Whether the $4,000 award was compensatory damages dependent on a constitutional violation, or instead a refund or restitution that would not preserve a live constitutional controversy.
4. Whether the appeal from the district court's November 2003 memorandum and order was appealable when the order was not entered on a separate document as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a).

Disposition

other