A federal judge on Friday denied a request for a temporary restraining order that sought to undo recent actions at Alabama’s largest water utility and limit future changes.
U.S. District Court Judge Anna Manasco made the decision during a status hearing on two cases challenging state laws that restructured the Birmingham Water Works Board, now operating as Central Alabama Water.
Richard Rice, an attorney for two former members of the utility’s board of directors, said they requested the temporary restraining order in connection with their lawsuit because moves at the utility during the past few months – including a mass layoff, stoppage of a project to stabilize a high-hazard dam, expansion of a new CEO’s authority and changes related to water-quality testing – could cause irreparable harm.
“The fact that the TRO was denied is not, obviously, the result we wanted, but there was a lot of support and attendance in the courtroom, and we're still optimistic about moving forward and being successful with the case,” Rice said.
An attorney for some of the defendants, who include Gov. Kay Ivey and other state and county officials, said his legal team, which is part of the state attorney general’s office, could not immediately comment on the hearing’s outcome.
While denying the motion for a temporary restraining order, Manasco reserved judgment on a motion for a preliminary injunction that also seeks to prevent changes that could affect the utility's structure, governance and workforce while the overall case is pending. Both motions ask that employees recently laid off or fired as part of actions that cut a quarter of the utility’s workforce be rehired.
Manasco also decided to coordinate the two cases that were the subject of the hearing. Former board members William Muhammad and Brenda Lewis filed one case, and Birmingham city officials filed the other. Coordination means hearings in the cases will take place at the same time and in the same room, Manasco said. She set the next hearing date for May 28.
Although hearings could be held in Montgomery, where Birmingham officials filed their suit, or in Birmingham, where Muhammad and Lewis filed theirs, Manasco said they will take place in Birmingham unless she receives and grants a relocation request.
“The case is of some public interest in Birmingham, and I want people who have an interest in coming to the proceedings to have the opportunity to do that,” she said.
Approximately 65 members of the public, including recently dismissed former CAW employees, attended the hearing. Some protested outside the Robert S. Vance Courthouse in Birmingham.
Reasons for denying temporary restraining order
Based on Manasco’s questioning of both plaintiffs’ and defendants’ attorneys, her decision to deny the motion for a temporary restraining order hinged on whether the defendants have the power to fulfill the motion’s 11 specific requests, many of which would require the utility’s current board members and managers to act. Those people aren’t defendants in the case.
Jim Davis, an attorney representing the governor and other state officials, said they do not have control over workforce decisions or other day-to-day operations of the water system and cannot force board members to take certain actions.
“I think we would be helpless if the court were to order us to rehire an employee,” he told Manasco. “We simply could not perform that function.”
Calvin Grigsby, another attorney for Muhammad and Lewis, argued defendants with board-appointing powers could remove their appointees if they didn’t comply with a hypothetical temporary restraining order.
“I do not believe that control exists,” Davis countered, pointing to a provision of Alabama law. “Any director may be removed for good cause, and they must provide a hearing that establishes good cause. So the appointees do not serve at the will or at the pleasure of the appointing authority.”
Manasco also questioned whether plaintiffs’ arguments met the legal standard for an immediate emergency order.
Judge leaves open possibility of preliminary injunction
Muhammad and Lewis’s motion for a preliminary injunction makes the same 11 requests as their motion for a temporary restraining order.
Rice said the differences between a restraining order and a preliminary injunction are that a restraining order calls for the court to act more urgently and, if granted, lasts a shorter amount of time. If the judge granted a preliminary injunction, it would last until the larger lawsuit is settled, he said.
Manasco advised the plaintiffs’ attorneys to better address why the court needs to intervene in actions at CAW before ruling in the overall case and to consider the ability of defendants to carry out requests. They should do that in documents they submit before the next hearing, she said.
Rice said he and Grigsby will follow those instructions. They could amend requests in the motion for a preliminary injunction and add defendants, he said.
“I know that those observations were on point,” Rice said of the judge’s comments, “and that's something that we need to take a look at – not painting with such broad strokes in terms of the relief we're requesting and who we're requesting the relief from.”
Cases coordinated – for now
Manasco also responded Friday to a motion defendants in the case from the former water works board members made to transfer that case from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to the Middle District of Alabama and combine it with the lawsuit Birmingham city officials filed.
Defendants filed that motion before Manasco was assigned to both cases. Attorneys for the defendants agreed with Manasco that a transfer was no longer needed, but they still argued for consolidation, which the plaintiffs’ attorneys opposed.
Manasco said that while she is only coordinating the cases – not combining them – she could consolidate them in the future.
Birmingham officials filed their suit challenging a 2025 law that required a new board for the utility and restructured its operations soon after Ivey signed it in May. A motion for dismissal is currently on the table in that case.
Muhammad and Lewis filed their suit in February. It challenges the 2025 law as well as laws from 2015 and 2016. Their attorneys have submitted a motion for summary judgment in the case. With a summary judgment, a judge can rule on all or parts of a case based on facts presented and without a trial.
Manasco set a timeline for responses to all motions in both cases such that she should receive them before the May 28 hearing.
