Clarifying Section 1292(a)(1): Limits on Interlocutory Appeals of Injunction Denials

Introduction

This commentary examines the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund, 24-1604 (7th Cir. June 2, 2025). The plaintiff-appellant, Union Pacific, sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction barring the Fund from asserting subsidence claims already or prospectively adjudicated against it by way of issue preclusion, claim preclusion, and non-party issue preclusion. The district court granted relief on certain theories but dismissed others, and Union Pacific appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The Seventh Circuit’s core holding is that § 1292(a)(1) does not authorize interlocutory review of a district-court order that merely narrows rather than definitively denies permanent injunctive relief, nor when the denied relief is “substantial and similar” to that still pending below.

Background and Key Issues

Illinois’s 1978 Mine Subsidence Act compelled insurers to cover ground-collapse losses and created the Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund as a reinsurer. Over decades the Fund paid subsidence claims originally tendered to Union Pacific (successor to coal-mining successor entities) and then sued Union Pacific to recover those payouts via subrogation. After multiple state and federal adjudications (notably Gillespie (2015) and the 2019 Opinion), Union Pacific filed a federal suit seeking a ruling that:

All claims the Fund acquired before the Gillespie appellate decision and the 2019 district-court opinion are barred by issue and claim preclusion;
Future acquired claims also are precluded under issue preclusion and non-party preclusion;
The Fund, as reinsurer, is the real party in interest;
The Fund should be enjoined from bringing any further suits on those barred theories.

The Fund moved to dismiss. The district court permitted Union Pacific to press preclusion defenses only as to claims acquired before the two earlier judgments, but it refused to enjoin future claims on the newly asserted theories. Union Pacific amended its complaint, the district court reiterated its prior rulings, and Union Pacific took an interlocutory appeal invoking § 1292(a)(1).

Summary of the Judgment

The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1). Even though Union Pacific sought a permanent injunction against future litigation, the court concluded:

Section 1292(a)(1) permits interlocutory appeals only from “definitive” denials of injunctions, not from orders that merely narrow or limit the scope of equitable relief still available below;
Alternatively, under the Albert “continuum” test, interlocutory review lies only if the injunction denied is entirely distinct from that still pending. Here the denied and remaining injunctions derive from the same facts and preclusion theories, so they are “substantial and similar,” barring appeal.

Because the district court’s rulings did not finally dispose of all requested permanent injunctive relief, the Seventh Circuit held § 1292(a)(1) did not provide appellate jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Elliott v. Hinds, 786 F.2d 298 (7th Cir. 1986): An interlocutory appeal lies when the district court makes conclusive findings that permanently deny equitable relief.
Holmes v. Fisher, 854 F.2d 229 (7th Cir. 1988): A total defeat of a request for an injunction is immediately appealable, even if other remedies (e.g., damages) survive.
Albert v. Trans Union Corp., 346 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2003): Introduced a “continuum” test for partial injunction dismissals—only when the refused injunction is “of an entirely different nature” than that remaining does § 1292(a)(1) apply.
Chicago Joe’s Tea Room, LLC v. Village of Broadview, 894 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2018): Warned against piecemeal appeals and suggested revisiting the scope of § 1292(a)(1) in future cases.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning turned on two intertwined tests for interlocutory jurisdiction:

“Definitive Denial” Analysis: A permanent-injunction denial is appealable if it definitively forecloses all equitable relief. Here, by contrast, the district court left in place a request for an injunction barring suits on pre-Gillespie claims. The refusal related only to future claims and did not finally resolve the equity dispute.
“Substantial and Similar”/Albert Continuum: When a case involves multiple injunction requests, appellate jurisdiction exists only if the denied injunction is “entirely different” from the one still pending. The Seventh Circuit found that the injunctions sought against past and future claims shared the same factual predicates (Superior Coal’s mining operations, corporate successorship, subsidence events) and the same preclusion theories (issue, claim, non-party). They were therefore “substantial and similar,” and the district court’s order did not satisfy § 1292(a)(1).

Impact

This decision clarifies and tightens the scope of interlocutory appeals of injunction denials under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) in several ways:

District courts retain greater latitude to resolve overlapping equitable claims in a single proceeding without fear of fragmenting appellate review.
Plaintiffs seeking to bar future litigation via injunction must secure a final denial or obtain a stay pending appeal only once all their equitable arguments are foreclosed.
Defendants asserting preclusion defenses should be mindful that partial rulings preserving some equitable issues may prevent immediate appellate review.

Lower courts will now more rigorously assess whether a denial of equitable relief truly “closes the book” on all injunction requests or merely narrows the controversy. Parties will need to decide whether to appeal only after final district-court judgment or to press for complete adjudication of all injunction grounds at the preliminary-injunction stage.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Interlocutory Appeal: An appeal before the district court enters a final judgment. Section 1292(a)(1) allows appeals only from certain orders concerning injunctions.
Permanent vs. Preliminary Injunction: A preliminary injunction is a short-term order preserving the status quo; a permanent injunction is a final, lasting order issued after full adjudication.
“Definitive Denial”: When the district court’s ruling makes clear no form of equitable relief will issue on a particular theory.
Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel): Bars relitigation of an issue already decided in a prior case between the same parties.
Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata): Bars litigation of claims that were or could have been raised in a prior action resolving the same cause of action.
Non-Party Issue Preclusion: Under Taylor v. Sturgell, non-parties may sometimes be bound by a prior decision if they controlled the first litigation or were in privity with a party.

Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Union Pacific v. Illinois Mine Subsidence Fund establishes that interlocutory appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) are unavailable when a district court’s order merely narrows or partially denies permanent injunctive relief, or when the denied and remaining injunctions are “substantial and similar.” By rejecting Union Pacific’s bid for immediate appellate review, the panel reinforced the final-judgment rule and discouraged piecemeal appeals of overlapping equitable claims. Moving forward, litigants will need to drive their efforts to secure or oppose injunctions to a final disposition before seeking appellate scrutiny.