Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issue here is whether respondent Lyons satisfied the prerequisites for seeking injunctive relief in the Federal District Court.

I

This case began on February 7, 1977, when respondent, Adolph Lyons, filed a complaint for damages, injunction, and declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The defendants were the City of Los Angeles and four of its police officers. The complaint alleged that on October 6, 1976, at 2 a. m., Lyons was stopped by the defendant officers for a traffic or vehicle code violation and that although Lyons offered no resistance or threat whatsoever, the Officers, without provocation or justification, seized Lyons and applied a “chokehold”1 — either *98the “bar arm control” hold or the “carotid-artery control” hold or both — rendering him unconscious and causing damage to his larynx. Counts I through IV of the complaint sought damages against the officers and the City. Count V, with which we are principally concerned here, sought a preliminary and permanent injunction against the City barring the use of the control holds. That count alleged that the City’s police officers, “pursuant to the authorization, instruction and encouragement of Defendant City of Los Angeles, regularly and routinely apply these choke holds in innumerable situations where they are not threatened by the use of any deadly force whatsoever,” that numerous persons have been injured as the result of the application of the chokeholds, that Lyons and others similarly situated are threatened with irreparable injury in the form of bodily injury and loss of life, and that Lyons “justifiably fears that any contact he has with Los Angeles Police officers may result in his being choked and strangled to death without provocation, justification or other legal excuse.” Lyons alleged the threatened impairment of rights protected by the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Injunctive relief was sought against the use of the control holds “except in situations where the proposed victim of said control reasonably appears to be threatening the immediate use of deadly force.” Count VI sought declaratory relief against the City, i. e., a judgment that use of the chokeholds absent the threat of immediate use of deadly force is a per se violation of various constitutional rights.

The District Court, by order, granted the City’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and entered judgment for *99the City on Counts V and VI.2 The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for the City on Counts V and VI, holding over the City’s objection that despite our decisions in O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488 (1974), and Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S. 362 (1976), Lyons had standing to seek relief against the application of the chokeholds. Lyons v. City of Los Angeles, 615 F. 2d 1243 (1980). The Court of Appeals held that there was a sufficient likelihood that Lyons would again be stopped and subjected to the unlawful use of force to constitute a case or controversy and to warrant the issuance of an injunction, if the injunction was otherwise authorized. We denied certiorari. 449 U. S. 934 (1980).

On remand, Lyons applied for a preliminary injunction. Lyons pressed only the Count V claim at this point. See n. 6, infra. The motion was heard on affidavits, depositions, and government records. The District Court found that Lyons had been stopped for a traffic infringement and that without provocation or legal justification the officers involved had applied a “Department-authorized chokehold which resulted in injuries to the plaintiff.” The court further found that the department authorizes the use of the holds in situations where no one is threatened by death or grievous bodily harm, that officers are insufficiently trained, that the use of the holds involves a high risk of injury or death as then employed, and that their continued use in situations where neither death nor serious bodily injury is threatened “is unconscionable in a civilized society.” The court concluded that such use violated Lyons’ substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. A preliminary injunc*100tion was entered enjoining “the use of both the carotid artery and bar arm holds under circumstances which do not threaten death or serious bodily injury.” An improved training program and regular reporting and recordkeeping were also ordered.3 The Court of Appeals affirmed in a brief per curiam opinion stating that the District Court had not abused its discretion in entering a preliminary injunction. 656 F. 2d 417 (1981). We granted certiorari, 455 U. S. 937 (1982), and now reverse.

II

Since our grant of certiorari, circumstances pertinent to the case have changed. Originally, Lyons’ complaint alleged that at least two deaths had occurred as a result of the application of chokeholds by the police. His first amended complaint alleged that 10 chokehold-related deaths had occurred. By May 1982, there had been five more such deaths. On May 6,1982, the Chief of Police in Los Angeles prohibited the use of the bar-arm chokehold in any circumstances. A few days later, on May 12,1982, the Board of Police Commissioners imposed a 6-month moratorium on the use of the carotid-artery chokehold except under circumstances where deadly force is authorized.4

*101Based on these events, on June 3, 1982, the City filed in this Court a memorandum suggesting a question of mootness, reciting the facts but arguing that the case was not moot. Lyons in turn filed a motion to dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. We denied that motion but reserved the question of mootness for later consideration. 457 U. S. 1115 (1982).

In his brief and at oral argument, Lyons has reasserted his position that in light of changed conditions, an injunctive decree is now unnecessary because he is no longer subject to a threat of injury. He urges that the preliminary injunction should be vacated. The City, on the other hand, while acknowledging that subsequent events have significantly changed the posture of this case, again asserts that the case is not moot because the moratorium is not permanent and may be lifted at any time.

We agree with the City that the case is not moot, since the moratorium by its terms is not permanent. Intervening events have not “irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.” County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U. S. 625, 631 (1979). We nevertheless hold, for another reason, that the federal courts are without jurisdiction to entertain Lyons’ claim for injunctive relief.

HH I — I l-H

It goes without saying that those who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold requirement imposed by Art. Ill of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 94-101 (1968); Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U. S. 411, 421-425 (1969) (opinion of Marshall, J.). Plaintiffs must demonstrate a “personal stake in the outcome” in order to “assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues” necessary for the proper resolution of constitutional questions. Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962). Abstract injury is not enough. The plaintiff must *102show that he “has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury” as the result of the challenged official conduct and the injury or threat of injury must be both “real and immediate,” not “conjectural” or “hypothetical.” See, e. g., Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103, 109-110 (1969); Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75, 89-91 (1947); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U. S. 270, 273 (1941); Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 488 (1923).

In O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488 (1974), we dealt with a case brought by a class of plaintiffs claiming that they had been subjected to discriminatory enforcement of the criminal law. Among other things, a county magistrate and judge were accused of discriminatory conduct in various respects, such as sentencing members of plaintiff’s class more harshly than other defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the suit- by the District Court, ruling that if the allegations were proved, an appropriate injunction could be entered.

We reversed for failure of the complaint to allege a case or controversy. Id., at 493. Although it was claimed in that case that particular members of the plaintiff class had actually suffered from the alleged unconstitutional practices, we observed that “[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief ... if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects.” Id., at 495-496. Past wrongs were evidence bearing on “whether there is a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.” Id., at 496. But the prospect of future injury rested “on the likelihood that [plaintiffs] will again be arrested for and charged with violations of the criminal law and will again be subjected to bond proceedings, trial, or sentencing before petitioners.” Ibid. The most that could be said for plaintiffs’ standing was “that if [plaintiffs] proceed to violate an unchallenged law and if they are charged, held to answer, and tried in any proceedings before petitioners, they will be subjected to the discriminatory prac*103tices that petitioners are alleged to have followed.” Id., at 497. We could not find a case or controversy in those circumstances: the threat to the plaintiffs was not “sufficiently real and immediate to show an existing controversy simply because they anticipate violating lawful criminal statutes and being tried for their offenses. ...” Id., at 496. It was to be assumed that “[plaintiffs] will conduct their activities within the law and so avoid prosecution and conviction as well as exposure to the challenged course of conduct said to be followed by petitioners.” Id., at 497.

We further observed that case-or-controversy considerations “obviously shade into those determining whether the complaint states a sound basis for equitable relief,” id., at 499, and went on to hold that even if the complaint presented an existing case or controversy, an adequate basis for equitable relief against petitioners had not been demonstrated:

“[Plaintiffs] have failed, moreover, to establish the basic requisites of the issuance of equitable relief in these circumstances — the likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury, and the inadequacy of remedies at law. We have already canvassed the necessarily conjectural nature of the threatened injury to which [plaintiffs] are allegedly subjected. And if any of the [plaintiffs] are ever prosecuted and face trial, or if they are illegally sentenced, there are available state and federal procedures which could provide relief from the wrongful conduct alleged.” Id., at 502.

Another relevant decision for present purposes is Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S. 362 (1976), a case in which plaintiffs alleged widespread illegal and unconstitutional police conduct aimed at minority citizens and against city residents in general. The Court reiterated the holding in O’Shea that past wrongs do not in themselves amount to that real and immediate threat of injury necessary to make out a case or controversy. The claim of injury rested upon “what one of a small, unnamed minority of policemen might do to them in the future *104because of that unknown policeman’s perception” of departmental procedures. 423 U. S., at 372. This hypothesis was “even more attenuated than those allegations of future injury found insufficient in O’Shea to warrant [the] invocation of federal jurisdiction.” Ibid. The Court also held that plaintiffs’ showing at trial of a relatively few instances of violations by individual police officers, without any showing of a deliberate policy on behalf of the named defendants, did not provide a basis for equitable relief.

Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103 (1969), a case arising in an analogous situation, is directly apposite. Zwickler sought a declaratory judgment that a New York statute prohibiting anonymous handbills directly pertaining to election campaigns was unconstitutional. Although Zwickler had once been convicted under the statute,5 his sole concern related to a Congressman who had left the House of Representatives for a place on the Supreme Court of New York and who would not likely be a candidate again. A unanimous Court held that because it was “most unlikely” that Zwickler would again be subject to the statute, no case or controversy of “‘sufficient immediacy and reality’” was present to allow a declaratory judgment. Id., at 109. Just as Zwickler’s assertion that the former Congressman could be a candidate for Congress again was “hardly a substitute for evidence that this is a prospect of ‘immediacy and reality,’” ibid., Lyons’ assertion that he may again be subject to an illegal chokehold does not create the actual controversy that must exist for a declaratory judgment to be entered.

We note also our per curiam opinion in Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U. S. 171 (1977). There, the father of a boy who had been killed by the police sought damages and a declaration that the Missouri statute which authorized police officers to use deadly force in apprehending a person who committed a felony was unconstitutional. Plaintiff alleged that he had an*105other son, who “‘if ever arrested or brought under an attempt at arrest on suspicion of a felony, might flee or give the appearance of fleeing, and would therefore be in danger of being killed by these defendants or other police officers ....’” Id., at 172, n. 2. We ruled that “[s]uch speculation is insufficient to establish the existence of a present, live controversy.” Id., at 173, n. 2.

IV

No extension of O Shea and Rizzo is necessary to hold that respondent Lyons has failed to demonstrate a case or controversy with the City that would justify the equitable relief sought.6 Lyons’ standing to seek the injunction requested depended on whether he was likely to suffer future injury from the use of the chokeholds by police officers. Count V of the complaint alleged the traffic stop and choking incident five months before. That Lyons may have been illegally choked by the police on October 6, 1976, while presumably affording Lyons standing to claim damages against the individual officers and perhaps against the City, does nothing to establish a real and immediate threat that he would again be stopped for a traffic violation, or for any other offense, by an officer or officers who would illegally choke him into unconsciousness without any provocation or resistance on his part. The additional allegation in the complaint that the police in Los Angeles routinely apply chokeholds in situations where they are not threatened by the use of deadly force falls far short of the allegations that would be necessary to establish a case or controversy between these parties.

In order to establish an actual controversy in this case, Lyons would have had not only to allege that he would have *106another encounter with the police but also to make the incredible assertion either (1) that all police officers in Los An-geles always choke any citizen with whom they happen to have an encounter, whether for the purpose of arrest, issuing a citation, or for questioning, or (2) that the City ordered or authorized police officers to act in such manner. Although Count V alleged that the City authorized the use of the control holds in situations where deadly force was not threatened, it did not indicate why Lyons might be realistically threatened by police officers who acted within the strictures of the City’s policy. If, for example, chokeholds were authorized to be used only to counter resistance to an arrest by a suspect, or to thwart an effort to escape, any future threat to Lyons from the City’s policy or from the conduct of police officers would be no more real than the possibility that he would again have an encounter with the police and that either he would illegally resist arrest or detention or the officers would disobey their instructions and again render him unconscious without any provocation.7

*107Under O’Shea and Rizzo, these allegations were an insufficient basis to provide a federal court with jurisdiction to entertain Count V of the complaint.8 This was apparently the conclusion of the District Court in dismissing Lyons’ claim for injunctive relief. Although the District Court acted without opinion or findings, the Court of Appeals interpreted its action as based on lack of standing, i. e., that under O’Shea and Rizzo, Lyons must be held to have made an “insufficient showing that the police were likely to do this to the plaintiff again.” 615 F. 2d, at 1246. For several reasons — each of. them infirm, in our view — the Court of Appeals thought reliance on O’Shea and Rizzo was misplaced and reversed the District Court.

First, the Court of Appeals thought that Lyons was more immediately threatened than the plaintiffs in those cases since, according to the Court of Appeals, Lyons need only *108be stopped for a minor traffic violation to be subject to the strangleholds. But even assuming that Lyons would again be stopped for a traffic or other violation in the reasonably near future, it is untenable to assert, and the complaint made no such allegation, that strangleholds are applied by the Los Angeles police to every citizen who is stopped or arrested regardless of the conduct of the person stopped. We cannot agree that the “odds,” 615 F. 2d, at 1247, that Lyons would not only again be stopped for a traffic violation but would also be subjected to a chokehold without any provocation whatsoever are sufficient to make out a federal case for equitable relief. We note that five months elapsed between October 6, 1976, and the filing of the complaint, yet there was no allegation of further unfortunate encounters between Lyons and the police.

Of course, it may be that among the countless encounters between the police and the citizens of a great city such as Los Angeles, there will be certain instances in which strangleholds will be illegally applied and injury and death unconstitutionally inflicted on the victim. As we have said, however, it is no more than conjecture to suggest that in every instance of a traffic stop, arrest, or other encounter between the police and a citizen, the police will act unconstitutionally and inflict injury without provocation or legal excuse. And it is surely no more than speculation to assert either that Lyons himself will again be involved in one of those unfortunate instances, or that he will be arrested in the future and provoke the use of a chokehold by resisting arrest, attempting to escape, or threatening deadly force or serious bodily injury.

Second, the Court of Appeals viewed O’Shea and Rizzo as cases in which the plaintiffs sought “massive structural” relief against the local law enforcement systems and therefore that the holdings in those cases were inapposite to cases such as this where the plaintiff, according to the Court of Appeals, seeks to enjoin only an “established,” “sanctioned” police practice assertedly violative of constitutional rights. O’Shea and Rizzo, however, cannot be so easily confined to their *109facts. If Lyons has made no showing that he is realistically threatened by a repetition of his experience of October 1976, then he has not met the requirements for seeking an injunction in a federal court, whether the injunction contemplates intrusive structural relief or the cessation of a discrete practice.

The Court of Appeals also asserted that Lyons “had a live and active claim” against the City “if only for a period of a few seconds” while the stranglehold was being applied to him and that for two reasons the claim had not become moot so as to disentitle Lyons to injunctive relief: First, because under normal rules of equity, a case does not become moot merely because the complained of conduct has ceased; and second, because Lyons’ claim is “capable of repetition but evading review” and therefore should be heard. We agree that Lyons had a live controversy with the City. Indeed, he still has a claim for damages against the City that appears to meet all Art. Ill requirements. Nevertheless, the issue here is not whether that claim has become moot but whether Lyons meets the preconditions for asserting an injunctive claim in a federal forum. The equitable doctrine that cessation of the challenged conduct does not bar an injunction is of little help in this respect, for Lyons’ lack of standing does not rest on the termination of the police practice but on the speculative nature of his claim that he will again experience injury as the result of that practice even if continued.

The rule that a claim does not become moot where it is capable of repetition, yet evades review, is likewise inapposite. Lyons’ claim that he was illegally strangled remains to be litigated in his suit for damages; in no sense does that claim “evade” review. Furthermore, the capable-of-repetition doctrine applies only in exceptional situations, and generally only where the named plaintiff can make a reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the alleged illegality. DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U. S. 312, 319 (1974). As we have indicated, Lyons has not made this demonstration.

*110The record and findings made on remand do not improve Lyons’ position with respect to standing. The District Court, having been reversed, did not expressly address Lyons’ standing to seek injunctive relief, although the City was careful to preserve its position on this question. There was no finding that Lyons faced a real and immediate threat of again being illegally choked. The City’s policy was described as authorizing the use of the strangleholds “under circumstances where no one is threatened with death or grievous bodily harm.” That policy was not further described, but the record before the court contained the department’s existing policy with respect to the employment of chokeholds. Nothing in that policy, contained in a Police Department manual, suggests that the chokeholds, or other kinds of force for that matter, are authorized absent some resistance or other provocation by the arrestee or other suspect.9 On the contrary, police officers were instructed to use chokeholds only when lesser degrees of force do not suffice and then only “to gain control of a suspect who is violently resisting the officer or trying to escape.” App. 230.

Our conclusion is that the Court of Appeals failed to heed O’Shea, Rizzo, and other relevant authority, and that the District Court was quite right in dismissing Count V.

*111V

Lyons fares no better if it be assumed that his pending damages suit affords him Art. Ill standing to seek an injunction as a remedy for the claim arising out of the October 1976 events. The equitable remedy is unavailable absent a showing of irreparable injury, a requirement that cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again — a “likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury.” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S., at 502. The speculative nature of Lyons’ claim of future injury requires a finding that this prerequisite of equitable relief has not been fulfilled.

Nor will the injury that Lyons allegedly suffered in 1976 go unrecompensed; for that injury, he has an adequate remedy at law. Contrary to the view of the Court of Appeals, it is not at all “difficult” under our holding “to see how anyone can ever challenge police or similar administrative practices.” 615 F. 2d, at 1250. The legality of the violence to which Lyons claims he was once subjected is at issue in his suit for damages and can be determined there. -

Absent a sufficient likelihood that he will again be wronged in a similar way, Lyons is no more entitled to an injunction than any other citizen of Los Angeles; and a federal court may not entertain a claim by .any or all citizens who no more than assert that certain practices of law enforcement officers are unconstitutional. Cf. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490 (1975); Schlesinger v. Reservists to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208 (1974); United States v. Richardson, 418 U. S. 166 (1974). This is not to suggest that such undifferentiated claims should not be taken seriously by local authorities. Indeed, the interest of an alert and interested citizen is an essential element of an effective and fair government, whether on the local, state, or national level.10 A federal court, how*112ever, is not the proper forum to press such claims unless the requirements for entry and the prerequisites for injunctive relief are satisfied.

We decline the invitation to slight the preconditions for equitable relief; for as we have held, recognition of the need for a proper balance between state and federal authority counsels restraint in the issuance of injunctions against state officers engaged in the administration of the States’ criminal laws in the absence of irreparable injury which is both great and immediate. O’Shea, supra, at 499; Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 46 (1971). Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225 (1972), held that suits brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 are exempt from the flat ban against the issuance of injunctions directed at state-court proceedings, 28 U. S. C. §2283. But this holding did not displace the normal principles of equity, comity, and federalism that should inform the judgment of federal courts when asked to oversee state law enforcement authorities. In exercising their equitable powers federal courts must recognize “[t]he special delicacy of the adjustment to be preserved between federal equitable power and State administration of its own law.” Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U. S. 117, 120 (1951); O’Shea v. Littleton, supra, at 500. See also Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S., at 380; Cleary v. Bolger, 371 U. S. 392 (1963); Wilson v. Schnettler, 365 U. S. 381 (1961); Pugach v. Dollinger, 365 U. S. 458 (1961). The Court of Appeals failed to apply these factors properly and therefore erred in finding that the District Court had not abused its discretion in entering an injunction in this case.

As we noted in O’Shea, 414 U. S., at 503, withholding in-junctive relief does not mean that the “federal law will exer*113cise no deterrent effect in these circumstances.” If Lyons has suffered an injury barred by the Federal Constitution, he has a remedy for damages under § 1983. Furthermore, those who deliberately deprive a citizen of his constitutional rights risk conviction under the federal criminal laws. Ibid.

Beyond these considerations the state courts need not impose the same standing or remedial requirements that govern federal-court proceedings. The individual States may permit their courts to use injunctions to oversee the conduct of law enforcement authorities on a continuing basis. But this is not the role of a federal court, absent far more justification than Lyons has proffered in this case.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly

Reversed.

Justice Marshall,

with whom Justice Brennan, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens join, dissenting.

The District Court found that the city of Los Angeles authorizes its police officers to apply life-threatening choke-holds to citizens who pose no threat of violence, arid that respondent, Adolph Lyons, was subjected to such a chokehold. The Court today holds that a federal court is without power to enjoin the enforcement of the city’s policy, no matter how flagrantly unconstitutional it may be. Since no one can show that he will be choked in the future, no one — not even a person who, like Lyons, has almost been choked to death — has standing to challenge the continuation of the policy. The city is free to continue the policy indefinitely as long as it is willing to pay damages for the injuries and deaths that result. I dissent from this unprecedented and unwarranted approach to standing.

There is plainly a “case or controversy” concerning the constitutionality of the city’s chokehold policy. The constitutionality of that policy is directly implicated by Lyons’ claim for damages against the city. The complaint clearly alleges *114that the officer who choked Lyons was carrying out an official policy, and a municipality is liable under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 for the conduct of its employees only if they acted pursuant to such a policy. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658, 694 (1978). Lyons therefore has standing to challenge the city’s chokehold policy and to obtain whatever relief a court may ultimately deem appropriate. None of our prior decisions suggests that his requests for particular forms of relief raise any additional issues concerning his standing. Standing has always depended on whether a plaintiff has a “personal stake in the outcome of the controversy,” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962), not on the “precise nature of the relief sought.” Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U. S. 411, 423 (1969) (opinion of Marshall, J., joined by Warren, C. J., and Brennan, J.).

I

A

Respondent Adolph Lyons is a 24-year-old Negro male who resides in Los Angeles. According to the uncontradicted evidence in the record,1 at about 2 a. m. on October 6, 1976, Lyons was pulled over to the curb by two officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) for a traffic infraction because one of his taillights was burned out. The officers greeted him with drawn revolvers as he exited from his car. Lyons was told to face his car and spread his legs. He did so. He was then ordered to clasp his hands and put them on top of his head. He again complied. After one of the officers completed a patdown search, Lyons dropped his hands, *115but was ordered to place them back above his head, and one of the officers grabbed Lyons’ hands and slammed them onto his head. Lyons complained about the pain caused by the ring of keys he was holding in his hand. Within 5 to 10 seconds, the officer began to choke Lyons by applying a forearm against his throat.' As Lyons struggled for air, the officer handcuffed him, but continued to apply the chokehold until he blacked out. When Lyons regained consciousness, he was lying face down on the ground, choking, gasping for air, and spitting up blood and dirt. He had urinated and defecated. He was issued a traffic citation and released.

On February 7, 1977, Lyons commenced this action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against the individual officers and the city, alleging violations of his rights under' the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution and seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. He claimed that he was subjected to a chokehold without justification and that defendant officers were “carrying out the official policies, customs and practices of the Los Angeles Police Department and the City of Los Angeles.” Count II, ¶ 13.2 These allegations were included or incorporated in each of the Counts in which the city was named as a defendant. See Counts II through VI. Lyons alleged that the city authorizes the use of chokeholds “in innumerable situations where [the police] are not threatened by the use of any deadly force whatsoever.” Count V, ¶ 22.

B

Although the city instructs its officers that use of a choke-hold does not constitute deadly force, since 1975 no less than 16 persons have died following the use of a chokehold by *116an LAPD police officer. Twelve have been Negro males.3 The evidence submitted to the District Court4 established that for many years it has been the official policy of the city to permit police officers to employ chokeholds in a variety of situations where they face no threat of violence. In reported “altercations” between LAPD officers and citizens the choke-holds are used more frequently than any other means of physical restraint.5 Between February 1975 and July 1980, LAPD officers applied chokeholds on at least 975 occasions, which represented more than three-quarters of the reported altercations.6

It is undisputed that chokeholds pose a high and unpredictable risk of serious injury or death. Chokeholds are intended to bring a subject under control by causing pain and rendering him unconscious. Depending on the position of the officer’s arm and the force applied, the victim’s voluntary *117or involuntary reaction, and his state of health, an officer may inadvertently crush the victim’s larynx, trachea, or hyoid. The result may be death caused by either cardiac arrest or asphyxiation.7 An LAPD officer described the reaction of a person to being choked as “do[ing] the chicken,” *118Exh. 44, p. 93, in reference apparently to the reactions of a chicken when its neck is wrung. The victim experiences extreme pain. His face turns blue as he is deprived of oxygen, he goes into spasmodic convulsions, his eyes roll back, his body wriggles, his feet kick up and down, and his arms move about wildly.

Although there has been no occasion to determine the precise contours of the city’s chokehold policy, the evidence submitted to the District Court provides some indications. LAPD Training Officer Terry Speer testified that an officer is authorized to deploy a chokehold whenever he “feels that there’s about to be a bodily attack made on him.” App. 381 (emphasis added). A training bulletin states that “[c]ontrol holds . . . allow officers to subdue any resistance by the suspects.” Exh. 47, p. 1 (emphasis added). In the proceedings below the city characterized its own policy as authorizing the use of chokeholds “ ‘to gain control of a suspect who is violently resisting the officer or trying to escape,’” to “subdue any resistance by the suspects,”8 and to permit an officer, “where . . . resisted, but not necessarily threatened with serious bodily harm or death, ... to subdue a suspect who forcibly resists an officer.” (Emphasis added.)9

The training given LAPD officers provides additional revealing evidence of the city’s chokehold policy. Officer *119Speer testified that in instructing officers concerning the use of force, the LAPD does not distinguish between felony and misdemeanor suspects. App. 379. Moreover, the officers are taught to maintain the chokehold until the suspect goes limp, id., at 387; App. to Pet. for Cert. 51a, despite substantial evidence that the application of a chokehold invariably induces a “flight or flee” syndrome, producing an involuntary struggle by the victim which can easily be misinterpreted by the officer as willful resistance that must be overcome by prolonging the chokehold and increasing the force applied. See n. 7, supra. In addition, officers are instructed that the chokeholds can be safely deployed for up to three or four minutes. App. 387-388; App. to Pet. for Cert. 48. Robert Jarvis, the city’s expert who has taught at the Los Angeles Police Academy for the past 12 years, admitted that officers are never told that the bar-arm control can cause death if applied for just two seconds. App. 388. Of the nine deaths for which evidence was submitted to the District Court, the average duration of the choke where specified was approximately 40 seconds.

C

In determining the appropriateness of a preliminary injunction, the District Court recognized that the city’s policy is subject to the constraints imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that “[d]uring the course of this confrontation, said officers, without provocation or legal justification, applied a Department-authorized chokehold which resulted in injuries to plaintiff.” (Emphasis added.) The court found that the “City of Los Angeles and the Department authorize the use of these holds under circumstances where no one is threatened by death or grievous bodily harm.” The court concluded that the use of the chokeholds constitutes “deadly force,” and that the city may not constitutionally authorize the use of such force “in situations where death or serious bodily harm is not threatened.” On the basis of this conclusion, the District Court en*120tered a preliminary injunction enjoining “the use of both the carotid-artery and bar arm holds under circumstances which do not threaten death or serious bodily injury.”10 As the Court of Appeals noted, “[a]ll the trial judge has done, so far, is to tell the city that its police officers may not apply life threatening strangleholds to persons stopped in routine police work unless the application of such force is necessary to prevent serious bodily harm to an officer.” 656 F. 2d 417, 418 (1981).

II

At the outset it is important to emphasize that Lyons’ entitlement to injunctive relief and his entitlement to an award of damages both depend upon whether he can show that the city’s chokehold policy violates the Constitution. An indispensable prerequisite of municipal liability under 42 U. S. C. §1983 is proof that the conduct complained of is attributable to an unconstitutional official policy or custom. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U. S. 312, 326 (1981); Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S., at 694. It is not enough for a § 1983 plaintiff to show that the employees or agents of a municipality have violated or will violate the Constitution, for a municipality will not be held liable solely on a theory of respondeat superior. See Monell, supra, at 694.

The Court errs in suggesting that Lyons’ prayer for injunc-tive relief in Count V of his first amended complaint concerns a policy that was not responsible for his injuries and that therefore could not support an award of damages. Ante, at 106-107, n. 7. Paragraph 8 of the complaint alleges that Lyons was choked “without provocation, legal justification or ex*121cuse.” Paragraph 13 expressly alleges that “[t]he Defendant Officers were carrying out the official policies, customs and practices of the Los Angeles Police Department and the City of Los Angeles,” and that “by virtue thereof, defendant City is liable for the actions” of the officers. (Emphasis added.) These allegations are incorporated in each of the Counts against the city, including Count V.

There is no basis for the Court’s assertion that Lyons has failed to allege “that the City either orders or authorizes application of the chokeholds where there is no resistance or other provocation.” Ante, at 106, n. 7. I am completely at a loss to understand how paragraphs 8 and 13 can be deemed insufficient to allege that the city’s policy authorizes the use of chokeholds without provocation. The Court apparently finds Lyons’ complaint wanting because, although it alleges that he was choked without provocation and that the officers acted pursuant to an official policy, it fails to allege in haec verba that the city’s policy authorizes the choking of suspects without provocation. I am aware of no case decided since the abolition of the old common-law forms of action, and the Court cites none, that in any way supports this crabbed construction of the complaint. A federal court is capable of concluding for itself that two plus two equals four.11

The Court also errs in asserting that even if the complaint sufficiently alleges that the city’s policy authorizes the use of chokeholds without provocation, such an allegation is in any event “belied by the record made on the application for preliminary injunction.” Ibid. This conclusion flatly contradicts the District Court’s express factual finding, which was left undisturbed by the Court of Appeals, that the officers applied a “Department-authorized chokehold which resulted in *122injuries to plaintiff.” (Emphasis added.) The city does not contend that this factual finding is clearly erroneous.12

In sum, it is absolutely clear that Lyons’ requests for damages and for injunctive relief call into question the constitutionality of the city’s policy concerning the use of chokeholds. If he does not show that that policy is unconstitutional, he will be no more entitled to damages than to an injunction.

III

Since Lyons’ claim for damages plainly gives him standing, and since the success of that claim depends upon a demonstration that the city’s chokehold policy is unconstitutional, it is beyond dispute that Lyons has properly invoked the District Court’s authority to adjudicate the constitutionality of the city’s chokehold policy. The disputé concerning the constitutionality of that policy plainly presents a “case or controversy” under Art. III. The Court nevertheless holds that a federal court has no power under Art. Ill to adjudicate Lyons’ request, in the same lawsuit, for injunctive relief with respect to that very policy. This anomalous result is not supported either by precedent or by the fundamental concern underlying the standing requirement. Moreover, by fragmenting a single claim into multiple claims for particular types of relief and requiring a separate showing of standing for each form of relief, the decision today departs from this *123Court’s traditional conception of standing and of the remedial powers of the federal courts.

A

It is simply disingenuous for the Court to assert that its decision requires “[n]o extension” of O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488 (1974), and Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S. 362 (1976). Ante, at 105. In contrast to this case O’Shea and Rizzo involved disputes focusing solely on the threat of future injury which the plaintiffs in those cases alleged they faced. In O’Shea the plaintiffs did not allege past injury and did not seek compensatory relief.13 In Rizzo, the plaintiffs sought only declaratory and injunctive relief and alleged past instances of police misconduct only in an attempt to establish the substantiality of the threat of future injury. There was similarly no claim for damages based on past injuries in Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U. S. 171 (1977), or Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103 (1969),14 on which the Court also relies.

*124These decisions do not support the Court’s holding today. As the Court recognized in O’Shea, standing under Art. III is established by an allegation of “‘threatened or actual injury.’” 414 U. S., at 493, quoting Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 617 (1973) (emphasis added). See also 414 U. S., at 493, n. 2. Because the plaintiffs in O’Shea, Rizzo, Mattis, and Zwickler did not seek to redress past injury, their standing to sue depended entirely on the risk of future injury they faced. Apart from the desire to eliminate the possibility of future injury, the plaintiffs in those cases had no other personal stake in the outcome of the controversies.

By contrast, Lyons’ request for prospective relief is coupled with his claim for damages based on past injury. In addition to the risk that he will be subjected to a chokehold in the future, Lyons has suffered past injury.15 Because he has a live claim for damages, he need not rely solely on the threat of future injury to establish his personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.16 In the cases relied on by the majority, *125the Court simply had no occasion to decide whether a plaintiff who has standing to litigate a dispute must clear a separate standing hurdle with respect to each form of relief sought.17

B

The Court’s decision likewise finds no support in the fundamental policy underlying the Art. Ill standing requirement — the concern that a federal court not decide a legal issue if the plaintiff lacks a sufficient “personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult . . . questions.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S., at 204. As this Court stated in Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 101 (1968), “the question of standing is related only to whether the dispute sought to be adjudicated will be presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution.” See also Valley Forge Christian College v. *126Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982) (standing requirement ensures that “the legal questions presented to the court will be resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action”).

Because Lyons has a claim for damages against the city, and because he cannot prevail on that claim unless he demonstrates that the city’s chokehold policy violates the Constitution, his personal stake in the outcome of the controversy adequately assures an adversary presentation of his challenge to the constitutionality of the policy.18 Moreover, the resolution of this challenge will be largely dispositive of his requests for declaratory and injunctive relief. No doubt the requests for injunctive relief may raise additional questions. But these questions involve familiar issues relating to the appropriateness of particular forms of relief, and have never been thought to implicate a litigant’s standing to sue. The denial of standing separately to seek injunctive relief therefore cannot be justified by the basic concern underlying the Art. Ill standing requirement.19

*127C

By fragmenting the standing inquiry and imposing a separate standing hurdle with respect to each form of relief sought, the decision today departs significantly from this Court’s traditional conception of the standing requirement and of the remedial powers of the federal courts. We have never required more than that a plaintiff have standing to litigate a claim. Whether he will be entitled to obtain particular forms of relief should he prevail has never been understood to be an issue of standing. In determining whether a plaintiff has standing, we have always focused on his personal stake in the outcome of the controversy, not on the issues sought to be litigated, Flast v. Cohen, supra, at 99, or the “precise nature of the relief sought.” Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U. S., at 423 (opinion of Marshall, J., joined by Warren, C. J., and Brennan, J.).

*1281

Our cases uniformly state that the touchstone of the Art. Ill standing requirement is the plaintiff’s personal stake in the underlying dispute, not in the particular types of relief sought. Once a plaintiff establishes a personal stake in a dispute, he has done all that is necessary to “invok[e] the court’s authority ... to challenge the action sought to be adjudicated.” Valley Forge Christian College, v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, supra, at 471-472. See, e. g., Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S., at 101 (stake in “the dispute to be adjudicated in the lawsuit”); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 443 (1972) (plaintiff must have “sufficient interest in challenging the statute’s validity”).

The personal stake of a litigant depends, in turn, on whether he has alleged a legally redressable injury. In determining whether a plaintiff has a sufficient personal stake in the outcome of a controversy, this Court has asked whether he “personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury,” Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S. 91, 99 (1979) (emphasis added), whether the injury “fairly can be traced to the challenged action,” Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U. S. 26, 41 (1976), and whether plaintiff’s injury “is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.” Id., at 38. See also Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U. S. 59, 74 (1978); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 508 (1975). These well-accepted criteria for determining whether a plaintiff has established the requisite personal stake do not fragment the standing inquiry into a series of discrete questions about the plaintiff’s stake in each of the particular types of relief sought. Quite the contrary, they ask simply whether the plaintiff has a sufficient stake in seeking a judicial resolution of the controversy.

Lyons has alleged past injury and a risk of future injury and has linked both to the city’s chokehold policy. Under established principles, the only additional question in determin*129ing standing under Art. Ill is whether the injuries he has alleged can be remedied or prevented by some form of judicial relief. Satisfaction of this requirement ensures that the lawsuit does not entail the issuance of an advisory opinion without the possibility of any judicial relief, and that the exercise of a court’s remedial powers will actually redress the alleged injury.20 Therefore Lyons needs to demonstrate only that, should he prevail on the merits, “the exercise of the Court’s remedial powers would redress the claimed injuries.” Duke Power Co., supra, at 74. See also Warth v. Seldin, supra, at 508; Simon, supra, at 38. Lyons has easily made this showing here, for monetary relief would plainly provide redress for his past injury, and prospective relief would reduce the likelihood of any future injury. Nothing more has ever been required to establish standing.

The Court’s decision turns these well-accepted principles on their heads by requiring a separate standing inquiry with *130respect to each request for relief. Until now, questions concerning remedy were relevant to the threshold issue of standing only in the limited sense that some relief must be possible. The approach adopted today drastically alters the inquiry into remedy that must be made to determine standing.

2

The Court’s fragmentation of the standing inquiry is also inconsistent with the way the federal courts have treated remedial issues since the merger of law and equity. The federal practice has been to reserve consideration of the appropriate relief until after a determination of the merits, not to foreclose certain forms of relief by a ruling on the pleadings. The prayer for relief is no part of the plaintiff’s cause of action. See 2A J. Moore & J. Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶8.18, p. 8-216, and n. 13 (1983) (Moore), and cases cited therein; C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2664 (1983) (Wright, Miller, & Kane). Rather, “[the usual rule is] that where legal rights have been invaded, and a federal statute provides for a general right to sue for such invasion, federal courts may use any available remedy to make good the wrong done.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678, 684 (1946) (footnote omitted).

Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically provides that “every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings.” The question whether a plaintiff has stated a claim turns not on “whether [he] has asked for the proper remedy but whether he is entitled to any remedy.” (Emphasis added.) Wright, Miller, & Kane §2664. This is fully consistent with the approach taken in our standing cases. Supra, at 128-129 and this page, and n. 20.

The Court provides no justification for departing from the traditional treatment of remedial issues and demanding a separate threshold inquiry into each form of relief a plaintiff seeks. It is anomalous to require a plaintiff to demonstrate *131“standing” to seek each particular form of relief requested in the complaint when under Rule 54(c) the remedy to which a party may be entitled need not even be demanded in the complaint.21 See Holt Civic Club v. Tuscaloosa, 439 U. S. 60, 65-66 (1978); Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 424 (1975). The traditional federal practice is a sound one. Even if it appears highly unlikely at the outset of a lawsuit that a plaintiff will establish that he is entitled to a particular remedy, there are dangers inherent in any doctrine that permits a court to foreclose any consideration of that remedy by ruling on the pleadings that the plaintiff lacks standing to seek it. A court has broad discretion to grant appropriate equitable relief to protect a party who has been injured by unlawful conduct, as well as members of the class, from future injury that may occur if the wrongdoer is permitted to continue his unlawful actions. Where, as here, a plaintiff alleges both past injury and a risk of future injury and presents a concededly substantial claim that a defendant is implementing an unlawful policy, it will rarely be easy to decide with any certainty at the outset of a lawsuit that no equitable relief would be appropriate under any conceivable set of facts that he might establish in support of his claim.

In sum, the Court’s approach to standing is wholly inconsistent with well-established standing principles and clashes with our longstanding conception of the remedial powers of a court and what is necessary to invoke the authority of a court to resolve a particular dispute.

I — I <1

Apart from the question of standing, the only remaining question presented in the petition for certiorari is whether *132the preliminary injunction issued by the District Court must be set aside because it “constituted a substantial interference in the operation of a municipal police department.” Pet. for Cert. i.22 In my view it does not.

In the portion of its brief concerning this second question, the city argues that the District Court ignored the principles of federalism set forth in Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S. 362 (1976). Brief for Petitioner 40-47. The city’s reliance on Rizzo is misplaced. That case involved an injunction which “significantly revis[ed] the internal procedures of the Philadelphia police department.” 423 U. S., at 379. The injunction required the police department to adopt “ ‘a comprehensive program for dealing adequately with civilian complaints’ ” to be formulated in accordance with extensive “guidelines” established by the District Court. Id., at 369, quoting Council of Organizations on Phila. Police A. & R. v. Rizzo, 357 F. Supp. 1289, 1321 (1973). Those guidelines specified detailed revisions of police manuals and rules of procedure, as well as the adoption of specific procedures for processing, screening, investigating, and adjudicating citizen complaints. In addition, the District Court supervised the implementation of the comprehensive program, issuing detailed orders concerning the posting and distribution of the revised police procedures and the drawing up of a “Citizen’s Complaint Report” in a format designated by the court. The District Court also reserved jurisdiction to review the progress of the police department. 423 U. S., at 365, n. 2. This Court concluded that the sweeping nature of the injunc-tive relief was inconsistent with “the principles of federalism.” Id., at 380.

*133The principles of federalism simply do not preclude the limited preliminary injunction issued in this case. Unlike the permanent injunction at issue in Rizzo, the preliminary injunction involved here entails no federal supervision of the LAPD’s activities. The preliminary injunction merely forbids the use of chokeholds absent the threat of deadly force, permitting their continued use where such a threat does exist. This limited ban takes the form of a preventive injunction, which has traditionally been regarded as the least intrusive form of equitable relief. Moreover, the city can remove the ban by obtaining approval of a training plan. Although the preliminary injunction also requires the city to provide records of the uses of chokeholds to respondent and to allow the court access to such records, this requirement is hardly onerous, since the LAPD already maintains records concerning the use of chokeholds.

A district court should be mindful that “federal-court intervention in the daily operation of a large city’s police department ... is undesirable and to be avoided if at all possible.” Rizzo, swpra, at 381 (Blackmun, J., dissenting).23 The modest interlocutory relief granted in this case differs markedly, however, from the intrusive injunction involved in Rizzo, and simply does not implicate the federalism concerns *134that arise when a federal court undertakes to “supervise the functioning of the police department.” 423 U. S., at 380.

V

Apparently because it is unwilling to rely solely on its unprecedented rule of standing, the Court goes on to conclude that, even if Lyons has standing, “[t]he equitable remedy is unavailable.” Ante, at 111. The Court’s reliance on this alternative ground is puzzling for two reasons.

If, as the Court says, Lyons lacks standing under Art. Ill, the federal courts have no power to decide his entitlement to equitable relief on the merits. Under the Court’s own view of Art. Ill, the Court’s discussion in Part V is purely an advisory opinion.

In addition, the question whether injunctive relief is available under equitable principles is simply not before us. We granted certiorari only to determine whether Lyons has standing and whether, if so, the preliminary injunction must be set aside because it constitutes an impermissible interference in the operation of a municipal police department. We did not grant certiorari to consider whether Lyons satisfies the traditional prerequisites for equitable relief. See n. 22, supra.

Even if the issue had been properly raised, I could not agree with the Court’s disposition of it. With the single exception of Rizzo v. Goode, supra,24 all of the cases relied on by the Court concerned injunctions against state criminal proceedings. The rule of Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), that such injunctions can be issued only in extraordinary circumstances in which the threat of injury is “great and immediate,” id., at 46, reflects the venerable rule that equity will not enjoin a criminal prosecution, the fact that constitu*135tional defenses can be raised in such a state prosecution, and an appreciation of the friction that injunctions against state judicial proceedings may produce. See ibid.; Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 462 (1974); 28 U. S. C. §2283.

Our prior decisions have repeatedly emphasized that where an injunction is not directed against a state criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding, “the relevant principles of equity, comity, and federalism” that underlie the Younger doctrine “have little force.” Steffel v. Thompson, supra, at 462, citing Lake Carriers’ Assn. v. MacMullan, 406 U. S. 498, 509 (1972). Outside the special context in which the Younger doctrine applies, we have held that the appropriateness of in-junctive relief is governed by traditional equitable considerations. See Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922, 930 (1975). Whatever the precise scope of the Younger doctrine may be, the concerns of comity and federalism that counsel restraint when a federal court is asked to enjoin a state criminal proceeding simply do not apply to an injunction directed solely at a police department.

If the preliminary injunction granted by the District Court is analyzed under general equitable principles, rather than the more stringent standards of Younger v. Harris, it becomes apparent that there is no rule of law that precludes equitable relief and requires that the preliminary injunction be set aside. “In reviewing such interlocutory relief, this Court may only consider whether issuance of the injunction constituted an abuse of discretion.” Brown v. Chote, 411 U. S. 452, 457 (1973).

The District Court concluded, on the basis of the facts before it, that Lyons was choked without provocation pursuant to an unconstitutional city policy. Supra, at 119. Given the necessarily preliminary nature of its inquiry, there was no way for the District Court to know the precise contours of the city’s policy or to ascertain the risk that Lyons, who had alleged that the policy was being applied in a discriminatory manner, might again be subjected to a chokehold. But in view of the Court’s conclusion that the unprovoked choking of *136Lyons was pursuant to a city policy, Lyons has satisfied “the usual basis for injunctive relief, ‘that there exists some cognizable danger of recurrent violation.’” Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp., 422 U. S. 49, 59 (1975), quoting United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629, 633 (1953). The risk of serious injuries and deaths to other citizens also supported the decision to grant a preliminary injunction. Courts of equity have much greater latitude in granting injunctive relief “in furtherance of the public interest than . . . when only private interests are involved.” Virginian R. Co. v. Railway Employee, 300 U. S. 515, 552 (1937). See Wright, Miller, & Kane § 2948; 7 Moore. ¶ 65.04[1]. In this case we know that the District Court would have been amply justified in considering the risk to the public, for after the preliminary injunction was stayed, five additional deaths occurred prior to the adoption of a moratorium. See n. 3, supra. Under these circumstances, I do not believe that the District Court abused its discretion.

Indeed, this Court has approved of a decision that directed issuance of a permanent injunction in a similar situation. See Lankford v. Gelston, 364 F. 2d 197 (CA4 1966), cited with approval in Allee v. Medrano, 416 U. S. 802, 816, n. 9 (1974). See n. 15, supra. In Lankford, citizens whose houses had been searched solely on the basis of uncorroborated, anonymous tips sought injunctive relief. The Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction against enforcement of the police department policy authorizing such searches, even though there was no evidence that their homes would be searched in the future. Lyons is no less entitled to seek injunctive relief. To hold otherwise is to vitiate “one of the most valuable features of equity jurisdiction, to anticipate and prevent a threatened injury, where the damages would be insufficient or irreparable.” Vicksburg Waterworks Co. v. Vicksburg, 185 U. S. 65, 82 (1902).

*137Here it is unnecessary to consider the propriety of a permanent injunction. The District Court has simply sought to protect Lyons and other citizens of Los Angeles pending a disposition of the merits. It will be time enough to consider the propriety of a permanent injunction when and if the District Court grants such relief.

. VI

The Court’s decision removes an entire class of constitutional violations from the equitable powers of a federal court. It immunizes from prospective equitable relief any policy that authorizes persistent deprivations of constitutional rights as long as no individual can establish with substantial certainty that he will be injured, or injured again, in the future. The Chief Justice asked in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, 419 (1971) (dissenting opinion), “what would be the judicial response to a police order authorizing ‘shoot to kill’ with respect to every fugitive”? His answer was that it would be “easy to predict our collective wrath and outrage.” Ibid. We now learn that wrath and outrage cannot be translated into an order to cease the unconstitutional practice, but only an award of damages to those who are victimized by the practice and live to sue and to the survivors of those who are not so fortunate. Under the view expressed by the majority today, , if the police adopt a policy of “shoot to kill,” or a policy of shooting 1 out of 10 suspects, the federal courts will be powerless to enjoin its continuation. Cf. Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S., at 621 (White, J., dissenting). The federal judicial power is now limited to levying a toll for such a systematic constitutional violation.

Mr. Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, after parallel trials of separate actions 1 filed *365in 1970, entered an order in 1973 requiring petitioners “to submit to [the District] Court for its approval a comprehensive program for improving the handling of citizen complaints alleging police misconduct” in accordance with a comprehensive opinion filed together with the order. The proposed program, negotiated between petitioners and respondents for the purpose of complying with the order, was incorporated six months later into a final judgment. Petitioner City Police Commissioner was thereby required, inter alia, to put into force a directive governing the manner by which citizens’ complaints against police officers should henceforth be handled by the department.2 The Court of Appeals for *366the Third Circuit, upholding the District Court’s finding that the existing procedures for handling citizen complaints were “inadequate,” affirmed the District Court’s choice of equitable relief: “The revisions were . . . ordered because they appeared to have the potential for prevention of future police misconduct.” 506 F. 2d 542, 548 (1974). We granted certiorari to consider petitioners’ claims that the judgment of the District Court represents an unwarranted intrusion by the federal judiciary into the discretionary authority committed to them by state and local law to perform their official functions. We find ourselves substantially in agreement with these claims, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

I

The central thrust of respondents’ efforts in the two trials was to lay a foundation for equitable intervention, in one degree or another, because of an assertedly pervasive pattern of illegal and unconstitutional mistreatment by police officers. This mistreatment was said to have been directed against minority citizens in particular *367and against all Philadelphia residents in general. The named individual and group respondents were certified to represent these two classes. The principal petitioners here — the Mayor, the City Managing Director, and the Police Commissioner — were charged with conduct ranging from express authorization or encouragement of this mistreatment to failure to act in a manner so as to assure that it would not recur in the future.

Hearing some 250 witnesses during 21 days of hearings, the District Court was faced with a staggering amount of evidence; each of the 40-odd incidents might alone have been the piece de resistance of a short, separate trial. The District Court carefully and conscientiously resolved often sharply conflicting testimony, and made detailed findings of fact,3 which both sides now accept, with respect to eight of the incidents presented by the Ooode respondents and with respect to 28 of those presented by COPPAR.4

The principal antagonists in the eight incidents recounted in Goode were Officers DeFazio and D'Amico, members of the city’s “Highway Patrol” force. They were not named as parties to the action. The District Court found the conduct of these officers to be violative of the constitutional rights of the citizen complainants in three 5 of the incidents, and further found that complaints to the police Board of Inquiry had resulted in one case in a relatively mild five-day suspension and in another case a conclusion that there was no basis for disciplinary action.

In only two of the 28 incidents recounted in COPPAR *368(which ranged in time from October 1969 to October 1970) did the District Court draw an explicit conclusion that the police conduct amounted to a deprivation of a federally secured right; it expressly found no police misconduct whatsoever in four of the incidents; and in one other the departmental policy complained of was subsequently changed. As to the remaining 21, the District Court did not proffer a comment on the degree of misconduct that had occurred: whether simply improvident, illegal under police regulations or state law, or actually violative of the individual’s constitutional rights. Respondents’ brief asserts that of this latter group, the facts as found in 14 of them “reveal [federal] violations.” 6 While we think that somewhat of an overstatement, we accept it, arguendo, and thus take it as established that, insofar as the COPPAR record reveals, there were 16 incidents occurring in the city of Philadelphia over a year’s time in which numbers of police officers violated citizens’ constitutional rights. Additionally, the District Court made reference to citizens5 complaints to the police in seven of those 16; in four of which, involving conduct of constitutional dimension, the police department received complaints but ultimately took no action against the offending officers.

The District Court made a number of conclusions of law, not all of which are relevant to our analysis. It found that the evidence did not establish the existence of any policy on the part of the named petitioners to violate the legal and constitutional rights of the plaintiff classes, but it did find that evidence of departmental procedure indicated a tendency to discourage the filing of civilian complaints and to minimize the consequences of police *369misconduct. It found that as to the larger plaintiff class, the residents of Philadelphia, only a small percentage of policemen commit violations of their legal and constitutional rights, but that the frequency with which such violations occur is such that “they cannot be dismissed as rare, isolated instances.” COPPAR v. Rizzo, 357 F. Supp. 1289, 1319 (1973). In the course of its opinion, the District Court commented:

“In the course of these proceedings, much of the argument has been directed toward the proposition that courts should not attempt to supervise the functioning of the police department. Although, contrary to the defendants’ assertions, the Court’s legal power to do just that is firmly established, . . . I am not persuaded that any such drastic remedy is called for, at least initially, in the present cases.” Id., at 1320.

The District Court concluded by directing petitioners to draft, for the court’s approval, “a comprehensive program for dealing adequately with civilian complaints,” to be formulated along the following “guidelines” suggested by the court:

“(1) Appropriate revision of police manuals and rules of procedure spelling out in some detail, in simple language, the ’dos and don’ts’ of permissible conduct in dealing with civilians (for example, manifestations of racial bias, derogatory remarks, offensive language, etc.; unnecessary damage to property and other unreasonable conduct in executing search warrants; limitations on pursuit of persons charged only with summary offenses; recording and processing civilian complaints, etc.). (2) Revision of procedures for processing complaints against police, including (a) ready availability of forms for use by civilians in lodging complaints against police *370officers; (b) a screening procedure for eliminating frivolous complaints; (c) prompt and adequate investigation of complaints; (d) adjudication of non-frivolous complaints by an impartial individual or body, insulated so far as practicable from chain of command pressures, with a fair opportunity afforded the complainant to present his complaint, and to the police officer to present his defense; and (3) prompt notification to the concerned parties, informing them of the outcome.” Id., at 1321.

While noting that the “guidelines” were consistent with “generally recognized minimum standards” and imposed “no substantial burdens” on the police department, the District Court emphasized that respondents had no constitutional right to improved police procedures for handling civilian complaints. But given that violations of constitutional rights of citizens occur in “unacceptably” high numbers, and are likely to continue to occur, the court-mandated revision was a “necessary first step” in attempting to prevent future abuses. Ibid. On petitioners’ appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed.

II

These actions were brought, and the affirmative equitable relief fashioned, under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. It provides that “[e]very person who, under color of [law] subjects, or causes to be subjected, any . . . person within the jurisdiction [of the United States] to the deprivation of any rights . . . secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law [or] suit in equity . . . .” The plain words of the statute impose liability — whether in the form of payment of redressive damages or being placed under an injunction — only for conduct which “subjects, or causes to be subjected” the *371complainant to a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws.

The findings of fact made by the District Court at the conclusion of these two parallel trials — in sharp contrast to that which respondents sought to prove with respect to petitioners — disclose a central paradox which permeates that court’s legal conclusions. Individual police officers not named as parties to the action were found to have violated the constitutional rights of particular individuals, only a few of whom were parties plaintiff. As the facts developed, there was no affirmative link between the occurrence of the various incidents of police misconduct and the adoption of any plan or policy by petitioners — express or otherwise — showing their authorization or approval of such misconduct. Instead, the sole causal connection found by the District Court between petitioners and the individual respondents was that in the absence of a change in police disciplinary procedures, the incidents were likely to continue to occur, not with respect to them, but as to the members of the classes they represented. In sum, the genesis of this lawsuit — a heated dispute between individual citizens and certain policemen — has evolved into an attempt by the federal judiciary to resolve a “controversy” between the entire citizenry of Philadelphia and the petitioning elected and appointed officials over what steps might, in the Court of Appeals’ words, “[appear] to have the potential for prevention of future police misconduct.” 506 F. 2d, at 548. The lower courts have, we think, overlooked several significant decisions of this Court in validating this type of litigation and the relief ultimately granted.

A

We first of all entertain serious doubts whether on the facts as found there was made out the requisite Art. Ill *372case or controversy between the individually named respondents and petitioners. In O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488 (1974), the individual respondents, plaintiffs in the District Court, alleged that petitioners, a county magistrate and judge, had embarked on a continuing, intentional practice of racially discriminatory bond setting, sentencing, and assessing of jury fees. No specific instances involving the individual respondents were set forth in the prayer for injunctive relief against the judicial officers. And even though respondents’ counsel at oral argument had stated that some of the named respondents had in fact “suffered from the alleged unconstitutional practices,” the Court concluded that “[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief, however, if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects.” Id., at 495-496. The Court further recognized that while “past wrongs are evidence bearing on whether there is a real and immediate threat of repeated injury,” the attempt to anticipate under what circumstances the respondents there would be made to appear in the future before petitioners “takes us into the area of speculation and conjecture.” Id., at 496-497. These observations apply here with even more force, for the individual respondents’ claim to “real and immediate” injury rests not upon what the named petitioners might do to them in the future — such as set a bond on the basis of race — but upon what one of a small, unnamed minority of policemen might do to them in the future because of that unknown policeman’s perception of departmental disciplinary procedures. This hypothesis is even more attenuated than those allegations of future injury found insufficient in O’Shea to warrant invocation of federal jurisdiction. Thus, insofar as the individual respondents were concerned, we think they lacked the requisite “per*373sonal stake in the outcome,” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962), i. e., the order overhauling police disciplinary procedures.

B

That conclusion alone might appear to end the matter, for O’Shea also noted that “if none of the named plaintiffs . . . establishes the requisite of a case or controversy with the defendants, none may seek relief on behalf of himself or any other member of the class” which they purport to represent. 414 U. S., at 494. But, unlike O’Shea, this case did not arise on the pleadings. The District Court, having certified the plaintiff classes,7 bridged the gap between the facts shown at trial and the class-wide relief sought with an unprecedented theory of § 1983 liability. It held that the classes’ § 1983 actions for equitable relief against petitioners were made out on a showing of an “unacceptably high” number of those incidents of constitutional dimension — some 20 in all — occurring at large in a city of three million inhabitants, with 7,500 policemen.

Nothing in Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496 (1939), the only decision of this Court cited by the District Court,8 *374or any other case from this Court, supports such an open-ended construction of § 1983. In Hague, the pattern of police misconduct upon which liability and injunctive relief were grounded was the adoption and enforcement of deliberate policies by the defendants there (including the Mayor and the Chief of Police) of excluding and removing the plaintiff's labor organizers and forbidding peaceful communication of their views to the citizens of Jersey City. These policies were implemented “by force and violence” on the part of individual policemen. There was no mistaking that the defendants proposed to continue their unconstitutional policies against the members of this discrete group.

Likewise, in Allee v. Medrano, 416 U. S. 802 (1974), relied upon by the Court of Appeals and respondents here, we noted:

“The complaint charged that the enjoined conduct was but one part of a single plan by the defendants, and the District Court found a pervasive pattern of intimidation in which the law enforcement authorities sought to suppress appellees’ constitutional rights. In this blunderbuss effort the police not only relied on statutes . . . found constitutionally deficient, but concurrently exercised their authority *375under valid laws in an unconstitutional manner.” Id., at 812 (emphasis added).

The numerous incidents of misconduct on the part of the named Texas Rangers, as found by the District Court and summarized in this Court’s opinion, established beyond peradventure not only a “persistent pattern” but one which flowed from an intentional, concerted, and indeed conspiratorial effort to deprive the organizers of their First Amendment rights and place them in fear of coming back. Id., at 814-815.

Respondents stress that the District Court not only found an “unacceptably high” number of incidents but held, as did the Court of Appeals, that “when a 'pattern of frequent police violations of rights is shown, the law is clear that injunctive relief may be granted.” 357 F. Supp., at 1318 (emphasis added). However, there was no showing that the behavior of the Philadelphia police was different in kind or degree from that which exists elsewhere; indeed, the District Court found “that the problems disclosed by the record . . . are fairly typical of [those] afflicting police departments in major urban areas.” Ibid. Thus, invocation of the word “pattern” in a case where, unlike Hague and Medrano, the defendants are not causally linked to it, is but a distant echo of the findings in those cases. The focus in Hague and Medrano was not simply on the number of violations which occurred but on the common thread running through them: a “pervasive pattern of intimidation” flowing from a deliberate plan by the named defendants to crush the nascent labor organizations. Medrano, supra, at 812. The District Court’s unadorned finding of a statistical pattern is quite dissimilar to the factual settings of these two cases.

The theory of liability underlying the District Court’s opinion, and urged upon us by respondents, is that even *376without a showing of direct responsibility for the actions of a small percentage of the police force, petitioners’ failure to act in the face of a statistical pattern is indistinguishable from the active conduct enjoined in Hague and Medrano. Respondents posit a constitutional “duty” on the part of petitioners (and a corresponding “right” of the citizens of Philadelphia) to “eliminate” future police misconduct; a “default” of that affirmative duty being shown by the statistical pattern, the District Court is empowered to act in petitioners’ stead and take whatever preventive measures are necessary, within its discretion, to secure the “right” at issue. Such reasoning, however, blurs accepted usages and meanings in the English language in a way which would be quite inconsistent with the words Congress chose in § 1983. We have never subscribed to these amorphous propositions, and we decline to do so now.

Respondents claim that the theory of liability embodied in the District Court’s opinion is supported by desegregation cases such as Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklen-burg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1 (1971). But this case, and the long line of precedents cited therein, simply reaffirmed the body of law originally enunciated in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954):

“Nearly 17 years ago this Court held, in explicit terms, that state-imposed segregation by race in public schools denies equal protection of the laws. At no time has the Court deviated in the slightest degree from that holding or its constitutional underpinnings.

“Once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a district court’s equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexi*377bility are inherent in equitable remedies.” Swann, supra, at 11, 15.

Respondents, in their effort to bring themselves within the language of Swann, ignore a critical factual distinction between their case and the desegregation cases decided by this Court. In the latter, segregation imposed by law had been implemented by state authorities for varying periods of time, whereas in the instant case the District Court found that the responsible authorities had played no affirmative part in depriving any members of the two respondent classes of any constitutional rights. Those against whom injunctive relief was directed in cases such as Swann and Brown were not administrators and school board members who had in their employ a small number of individuals, which latter on their own deprived black students of their constitutional rights to a unitary school system. They were administrators and school board members who were found by their own conduct in the administration of the school system to have denied those rights. Here, the District Court found that none of the petitioners had deprived the respondent classes of any rights secured under the Constitution. Under the well-established rule that federal “judicial powers may be exercised only on the basis of a constitutional violation,” Swann, supra, at 16, this case presented no occasion for the District Court to grant equitable relief against petitioners.

C

Going beyond considerations concerning the existence of a live controversy and threshold statutory liability, we must address an additional and novel claim advanced by respondent classes. They assert that given the citizenry’s “right” to be protected from unconstitutional exercises of police power, and the “need for protection from *378such abuses,” respondents have a right to mandatory equitable relief in some form when those in supervisory positions do not institute steps to reduce the incidence of unconstitutional police misconduct.9 The scope of federal equity power, it is proposed, should be extended to the fashioning of prophylactic procedures for a state agency designed to minimize this kind of misconduct on the part of a handful of its employees. However, on the facts of this case, not only is this novel claim quite at odds with the settled rule that in federal equity cases “the nature of the violation determines the scope of the remedy,” ibid., but important considerations of federalism are additional factors weighing against it. Where, as here, the exercise of authority by state officials is attacked, federal courts must be constantly mindful of the “special delicacy of the adjustment to be preserved between federal equitable power and State administration of its own law.” Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U. S. 117, 120 (1951), quoted in O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S., at 500.

Section 1983 by its terms confers authority to grant equitable relief as well as damages, but its words “allow a suit in equity only when that is the proper proceeding for redress, and they refer to existing standards to determine what is a proper proceeding.” Giles v. Harris, 189 U. S. 475, 486 (1903) (Holmes, J.). Even in an action between private individuals, it has long been held that an injunction is “to be used sparingly, and only in a clear and plain case.” Irwin v. Dixion, 9 How. 10, 33 (1850). When a plaintiff seeks to enjoin the activity of a government agency, even within a unitary court system, his case must contend with “the well-established rule that the Government has traditionally been granted the widest latitude in the 'dispatch of its own internal *379affairs/ Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 896 (1961)/’ quoted in Sampson v. Murray, 415 U. S. 61, 83 (1974). The District Court’s injunctive order here, significantly revising the internal procedures of the Philadelphia police department, was indisputably a sharp limitation on the department’s “latitude in the ‘dispatch of its own internal affairs.’ ”

When the frame of reference moves from a unitary court system, governed by the principles just stated, to a system of federal courts representing the Nation, subsisting side by side with 50 state judicial, legislative, and executive branches, appropriate consideration must be given to principles of federalism in determining the availability and scope of equitable relief. Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922, 928 (1975).

So strongly has Congress weighted this factor of federalism in the case of a state criminal proceeding that it has enacted 28 U. S. C. § 2283 to actually deny to the district courts the authority to issue injunctions against such proceedings unless the proceedings come within narrowly specified exceptions. Even though an action brought under § 1983, as this was, is within those exceptions, Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225 (1972), the underlying notions of federalism which Congress has recognized in dealing with the relationships between federal and state courts still have weight. Where an injunction against a criminal proceeding is sought under § 1983, “the principles of equity, comity, and federalism” must nonetheless restrain a federal court. 407 U. S., at 243.

But even where the prayer for injunctive relief does not seek to enjoin the state criminal proceedings themselves, we have held that the principles of equity nonetheless militate heavily against the grant of an injunction except in the most extraordinary circumstances. In O’Shea v. Littleton, supra, at 502, we held that “a major *380continuing intrusion of the equitable power of the federal courts into the daily conduct of state criminal proceedings is in sharp conflict with the principles of equitable restraint which this Court has recognized in the decisions previously noted.” And the same principles of federalism may prevent the injunction by a federal court of a state civil proceeding once begun. Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592 (1975).

Thus the principles of federalism which play such an important part in governing the relationship between federal courts and state governments, though initially expounded and perhaps entitled to their greatest weight in cases where it was sought to enjoin a criminal prosecution in progress, have not been limited either to that situation or indeed to a criminal proceeding itself. We think these principles likewise have applicability where injunctive relief is sought, not against the judicial branch of the state government, but against those in charge of an executive branch of an agency of state or local governments such as petitioners here. Indeed, in the recent case of Mayor v. Educational Equality League, 415 U. S. 605 (1974), in which private individuals sought injunctive relief against the Mayor of Philadelphia, we expressly noted the existence of such considerations, saying: “There are also delicate issues of federal-state relationships underlying this case.” Id., at 615.

Contrary to the District Court’s flat pronouncement that a federal court’s legal power to “supervise the functioning of the police department... is firmly established,” it is the foregoing cases and principles that must govern consideration of the type of injunctive relief granted here. When it injected itself by injunctive decree into the internal disciplinary affairs of this state agency, the District Court departed from these precepts.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Court *381of Appeals which affirmed the decree of the District Court is

Reversed.

Me. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Me. Justice Blackmun,

with whom Me. Justice Brennan and Me. Justice Marshall join, dissenting.

To be sure, federal-court intervention in the daily operation of a large city’s police department, as the Court intimates, is undesirable and to be avoided if at all possible. The Court appropriately observes, however, ante, at 367, that what the Federal District Court did here was to engage in a careful and conscientious resolution of often sharply conflicting testimony and to make detailed findings of fact, now accepted by both sides, that attack the problem that is the subject of the respondents’ complaint. The remedy was one evolved with the defendant officials’ assent, reluctant though that assent may have been, and it was one that the police department concededly could live with. Indeed, the District Court, in its memorandum of December 18, 1973, stated that “the resolution of all the disputed items was more nearly in accord with the defendants’ position than with the plaintiffs’ position,” and that the relief contemplated by the earlier orders of March 14, 1973, see COPPAR v. Rizzo, 357 F. Supp. 1289 (ED Pa.), “did not go beyond what the defendants had always been willing to accept.” App. 190a. No one, not even this Court’s majority, disputes the apparent efficacy of the relief or the fact that it effectuated a betterment in the system and should serve to lessen the number of instances of deprival of constitutional rights of members of the respondent classes. What is worrisome to the Court is abstract principle, and, of course, the Court has a right *382to be concerned with abstract principle that, when extended to the limits of logic, may produce untoward results in other circumstances on a future day. See Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U. S. 349, 355 (1908) (Holmes, J.).

But the District Court here, with detailed, careful, and sympathetic findings, ascertained the existence of violations of citizens’ constitutional rights, of a pattern of that type of activity, of its likely continuance and recurrence, and of an official indifference as to doing anything about it. The case, accordingly, plainly fits the mold of Allee v. Medrano, 416 U. S. 802 (1974), and Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496 (1939), despite the observation, 357 F. Supp., at 1319, that the evidence “does not establish the existence of any overall Police Department policy to violate the legal and constitutional rights of citizens, nor to discriminate on the basis of race” (emphasis supplied). I am not persuaded that the Court’s attempt to distinguish those cases from this one is at all successful. There must be federal relief available against persistent deprival of federal constitutional rights even by (or, perhaps I should say, particularly by) constituted authority on the state side.

The Court entertains “serious doubts,” ante, at 371-372, as to whether there is a case or controversy here, citing O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488 (1974). O’Shea, however, presented quite different facts. There, the plaintiff-respondents had alleged a fear of injury from actions that would be subsequent to some future, valid arrest. The Court said:

“We assume that respondents will conduct their activities within the law and so avoid prosecution and conviction as well as exposure to the challenged course of conduct said to be followed by petitioners .... Under these circumstances, where *383respondents do not claim any constitutional right to engage in conduct proscribed by therefore presumably permissible state laws, or indicate that it is otherwise their intention to so conduct themselves, the threat of injury from the alleged course of conduct they attack is simply too remote to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement and permit adjudication by a federal court.” Id., at 497-498.

Here, by contrast, plaintiff-respondents are persons injured by past unconstitutional conduct (an allegation not made in the O’Shea complaint) and fear injury at the hands of the police regardless of whether they have violated a valid law.

To the extent that Part II-A of the Court’s opinion today indicates that some constitutional violations might be spread so extremely thin as to prevent any individual from showing the requisite case or controversy, I must agree. I do not agree, however, with the Court’s substitution of its judgment for that of the District Court on what the evidence here shows. The Court states that what was shown was minimal, involving only a few incidents out of thousands of arrests in a city of several million population. Small as the ratio of incidents to arrests may be, the District Court nevertheless found a pattern of operation, even if no policy, and one sufficiently significant that the violations “cannot be dismissed as rare, isolated instances.” 357 F. Supp., at 1319. Nothing the Court has said demonstrates for me that there is no justification for that finding on this record. The Court’s criticism about numbers would be just as forceful, or would miss the mark just as much, with 100 incidents or 500 or even 3,000, when compared with the overall number of arrests made in the city of Philadelphia. The pattern line will appear somewhere. The District Court drew it this side of the number of *384proved instances. One properly may wonder how many more instances actually existed but were unproved because of the pressure of time upon the trial court, or because of reluctant witnesses, or because of inherent fear to question constituted authority in any degree, or because of a despairing belief, unfounded though it may be, that nothing can be done about it anyway and that it is not worth the effort. That it was worth the effort is convincingly demonstrated by the result in the District Court, by the affirmance, on the issues before us, by a unanimous panel of the Third Circuit, and by the support given the result below by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia Bar Association, the Greater Philadelphia Movement, and the other entities that have filed briefs as amici curiae here in support of the respondents.

The Court today appears to assert that a state official is not subject to the strictures of 42 U. S. C. § 1983 unless he directs the deprivation of constitutional rights. Ante, at 375-377. In so holding, it seems to me, the Court ignores both the language of § 1983 and the case law interpreting that language. Section 1983 provides a cause of action where a person acting under color of state law “subjects, or causes to be subjected,” any other person to a deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. By its very words, § 1983 reaches not only the acts of an official, but also the acts of subordinates for whom he is responsible. In Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961), the Court said that § 1983 “should be read against the background of tort liability that makes a man responsible for the natural consequences of his actions,” id., at 187, and:

“It is abundantly clear that one reason the legislation was passed was to afford a federal right in federal courts because, by reason of prejudice, pas*385sion, neglect, intolerance or otherwise, state laws might not be enforced and the claims of citizens to the enjoyment of fights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment might- be denied by state agencies.” Id., at 180. (Emphasis added.)

I do not find it necessary to reach the question under what circumstances failure to supervise will justify an award of money damages, or whether an injunction is authorized where the superior has no consciousness of the wrongs being perpetrated by his subordinates.1 It is clear that an official may be enjoined from consciously permitting his subordinates, in the course of their duties, to violate the constitutional rights of persons with whom they deal. In rejecting the concept that the official may be responsible under § 1983, the Court today easts aside reasoned conclusions to the contrary reached by the Courts of Appeals of 10 Circuits.2

*386In the instant case, the District Court found that although there was no departmental policy of racial discrimination, “such violations do occur, with such frequency that they cannot be dismissed as rare, isolated instances; and that little or nothing is done by the city authorities to punish such infractions, or to prevent their recurrence,” 357 F. Supp., at 1319, and that it “is the policy of the department to discourage the filing of such complaints, to avoid or minimize the consequences of proven police misconduct, and to resist disclosure of the final disposition of such complaints.” Id., at 1318. Needless to say, petitioners were under a statutory duty to supervise their, subordinates. See Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, c. 2, § 5-200. I agree with the District Court that its findings are sufficient to bring petitioners within the ambit of § 1983.

Further, the applicability of § 1983 to controlling officers allows the district courts to avoid the necessity of injunctions issued against individual officers and the consequent continuing supervision by the federal courts of the day-to-day activities of the men on the street. The District Court aptly stated:

“Respect and admiration for the performance of the vast majority of police officers cannot justify refusal to confront the reality of the abuses which *387do exist. But deference to the essential role of the police in our society does mandate that intrusion by the courts into this sensitive area should be limited, and should be directed toward insuring that the police themselves are encouraged to remedy the situation.” 357 F. Supp., at 1320.

I would regard what was accomplished in this case as one of those rightly rare but nevertheless justified instances — just as Allee and Hague — of federal-court “intervention” in a state or municipal executive area. The facts, the deprival of constitutional rights, and the pattern are all proved in sufficient degree. And the remedy is carefully delineated, worked out within the administrative structure rather than superimposed by edict upon it, and essentially, and concededly, “livable.” In the City of Brotherly Love — or in any other American city — no less should be expected. It is a matter of regret that the Court sees fit to nullify what so meticulously and thoughtfully has been evolved to satisfy an existing need relating to constitutional rights that we cherish and hold dear.

*390Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Ordinarily, a federal court considering whether to award permanent injunctive relief to a prevailing plaintiff applies the four-factor test historically employed by courts of equity. Petitioners eBay Inc. and Half.com, Inc., argue that this traditional test applies to disputes arising under the Patent Act. We agree and, accordingly, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

I

Petitioner eBay operates a popular Internet Web site that allows private sellers to list goods they wish to sell, either through an auction or at a fixed price. Petitioner Half.com, now a wholly owned subsidiary of eBay, operates a similar Web site. Respondent MercExchange, L. L. C., holds a number of patents, including a business method patent for an electronic market designed to facilitate the sale of goods between private individuals by establishing a central authority to promote trust among participants. See U. S. Patent No. 5,845,265. MercExchange sought to license its patent to eBay and Half.com, as it had previously done with other companies, but the parties failed to reach an agreement. MercExchange subsequently filed a patent infringement suit against eBay and Half.com in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A jury found *391that MercExchange’s patent was valid, that eBay and Half.com had infringed that patent, and that an award of damages was appropriate.1

Following the jury verdict, the District Court denied MercExchange’s motion for permanent injunctive relief. 275 F. Supp. 2d 695 (2003). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, applying its “general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.” 401 F. 3d 1323, 1339 (2005). We granted certiorari to determine the appropriateness of this general rule. 546 U. S. 1029 (2005).

II

According to well-established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief. A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. See, e. g., Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 311-313 (1982); Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U. S. 531, 542 (1987). The decision to grant or deny permanent injunctive relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court, reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion. See, e. g., Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S., at 320.

These familiar principles apply with equal force to disputes arising under the Patent Act. As this Court has long recognized, “a major departure from the long tradition of equity practice should not be lightly implied.” Ibid.; see also Amoco, supra, at 542. Nothing in the Patent Act indi*392cates that Congress intended such a departure. To the contrary, the Patent Act expressly provides that injunctions “may” issue “in accordance with the principles of equity.” 35 U. S. C. § 283.2

To be sure, the Patent Act also declares that “patents shall have the attributes of personal property,” §261, including “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention,” § 154(a)(1). According to the Court of Appeals, this statutory right to exclude alone justifies its general rule in favor of permanent injunctive relief. 401 F. 3d, at 1338. But the creation of a right is distinct from the provision of remedies for violations of that right. Indeed, the Patent Act itself indicates that patents shall have the attributes of personal property “[sjubject to the provisions of this title,” 35 U. S. C. §261, including, presumably, the provision that injunctive relief “may” issue only “in accordance with the principles of equity,” § 283.

This approach is consistent with our treatment of injunctions under the Copyright Act. Like a patent owner, a copyright holder possesses “the right to exclude others from using his property.” Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U. S. 123, 127 (1932); see also id., at 127-128 (“A copyright, like a patent, is at once the equivalent given by the public for benefits bestowed by the genius and meditations and skill of individuals and the incentive to further efforts for the same important objects” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Like the Patent Act, the Copyright Act provides that courts “may” grant injunctive relief “on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.” 17 U. S. C. § 502(a). And as in our decision today, this Court has consistently rejected invitations to replace traditional equitable considerations with a rule that an injunction auto*393matically follows a determination that a copyright has been infringed. See, e. g., New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U. S. 483, 505 (2001) (citing Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U. S. 569, 578, n. 10 (1994)); Dun v. Lumbermen’s Credit Assn., 209 U. S. 20, 23-24 (1908).

Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals below fairly applied these traditional equitable principles in deciding respondent’s motion for a permanent injunction. Although the District Court recited the traditional four-factor test, 275 F. Supp. 2d, at 711, it appeared to adopt certain expansive principles suggesting that injunctive relief could not issue in a broad swath of cases. Most notably, it concluded that a “plaintiff’s willingness to license its patents” and “its lack of commercial activity in practicing the patents” would be sufficient to establish that the patent holder would not suffer irreparable harm if an injunction did not issue. Id., at 712. But traditional equitable principles do not permit such broad classifications. For example, some patent holders, such as university researchers or self-made inventors, might reasonably prefer to license their patents, rather than undertake efforts to secure the financing necessary to bring their works to market themselves. Such patent holders may be able to satisfy the traditional four-factor test, and we see no basis for categorically denying them the opportunity to do so. To the extent that the District Court adopted such a categorical rule, then, its analysis cannot be squared with the principles of equity adopted by Congress. The court’s categorical rule is also in tension with Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U. S. 405, 422-430 (1908), which rejected the contention that a eourt of equity has no jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief to a patent holder who has unreasonably declined to use the patent.

In reversing the District Court, the Court of Appeals departed in the opposite direction from the four-factor test. The court articulated a “general rule,” unique to patent disputes, “that a permanent injunction will issue once infringe*394ment and validity have been adjudged.” 401 F. 3d, at 1338. The court further indicated that injunctions should be denied only in the “unusual” case, under “exceptional circumstances” and “‘in rare instances ... to protect the public interest.’” Id., at 1338-1339. Just as the District Court erred in its categorical denial of injunctive relief, the Court of Appeals erred in its categorical grant of such relief. Cf. Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F. 2d 858, 865 (CA Fed. 1984) (recognizing the “considerable discretion” district courts have “in determining whether the facts of a situation require it to issue an injunction”).

Because we conclude that neither court below correctly applied the traditional four-factor framework that governs the award of injunctive relief, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, so that the District Court may apply that framework in the first instance. In doing so, we take no position on whether permanent injunctive relief should or should not issue in this particular case, or indeed in any number of other disputes arising under the Patent Act. We hold only that the decision whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests within the equitable discretion of the district courts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistent with traditional principles of equity, in patent disputes no less than in other cases governed by such standards.

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Chief Justice Roberts,

with whom

Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg join, concurring.

I agree with the Court’s holding that “the decision whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests within the equitable discretion of the district courts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistent with traditional principles of equity, in patent disputes no less than in other cases *395governed by such standards,” ante, at 394, and I join the opinion of the Court. That opinion rightly rests on the proposition that “a major departure from the long tradition of equity practice should not be lightly implied.” Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 320 (1982); see ante, at 391.

From at least the early 19th century, courts have granted injunctive relief upon a finding of infringement in the vast majority of patent cases. This “long tradition of equity practice” is not surprising, given the difficulty of protecting a right to exclude through monetary remedies that allow an infringer to use an invention against the patentee’s wishes— a difficulty that often implicates the first two factors of the traditional four-factor test. This historical practice, as the Court holds, does not entitle a patentee to a permanent injunction or justify a general rule that such injunctions should issue. The Federal Circuit itself so recognized in Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F. 2d 858, 865-867 (1984). At the same time, there is a difference between exercising equitable discretion pursuant to the established four-factor test and writing on an entirely clean slate. “Discretion is not whim, and limiting discretion according to legal standards helps promote the basic principle of justice that like cases should be decided alike.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U. S. 132, 139 (2005). When it comes to discerning and applying those standards, in this area as others, “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.” New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 349 (1921) (opinion for the Court by Holmes, J.).

Justice Kennedy,

with whom

Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Breyer join, concurring.

The Court is correct, in my view, to hold that courts should apply the well-established, four-factor test — without resort to categorical rules — in deciding whether to grant injunctive relief in patent cases. The Chief Justice is also correct *396that history may be instructive in applying this test. Ante, at 395 (concurring opinion). The traditional practice of issuing injunctions against patent infringers, however, does not seem to rest on “the difficulty of protecting a right to exclude through monetary remedies that allow an infringer to use an invention against the patentee’s wishes.” Ibid. (Roberts, C. J., concurring). Both the terms of the Patent Act and the traditional view of injunctive relief accept that the existence of a right to exclude does not dictate the remedy for a violation of that right. Ante, at 391-392 (opinion of the Court). To the extent earlier cases establish a pattern of granting an injunction against patent infringers almost as a matter of course, this pattern simply illustrates the result of the four-factor test in the contexts then prevalent. The lesson of the historical practice, therefore, is most helpful and instructive when the circumstances of a case bear substantial parallels to litigation the courts have confronted before.

In cases now arising trial courts should bear in mind that in many instances the nature of the patent being enforced and the economic function of the patent holder present considerations quite unlike earlier cases. An industry has developed in which firms use patents not as a basis for producing and selling goods but, instead, primarily for obtaining licensing fees. See FTC, To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy, ch. 3, pp. 38-39 (Oct. 2003), available at http://www.ftc.gov/ os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf (as visited May 11, 2006, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). For these firms, an injunction, and the potentially serious sanctions arising from its violation, can be employed as a bargaining tool to charge exorbitant fees to companies that seek to buy licenses to practice the patent. See ibid. When the patented invention is but a small component of the product the companies seek to produce and the threat of an injunction is employed simply for undue leverage in negotiations, legal damages may well be sufficient to compensate for the infringement *397and an injunction may not serve the public interest. In addition injunctive relief may have different consequences for the burgeoning number of patents over business methods, which were not of much economic and legal significance in earlier times. The potential vagueness and suspect validity of some of these patents may affect the calculus under the four-factor test.

The equitable discretion over injunctions, granted by the Patent Act, is well suited to allow courts to adapt to the rapid technological and legal developments in the patent system. For these reasons it should be recognized that district courts must determine whether past practice fits the circumstances of the cases before them. With these observations, I join the opinion of the Court.

POSNER, Circuit Judge.

This appeal from the grant of a permanent injunction raises fundamental issues concerning the propriety of injunctive relief 775 F.Supp. 1192 (E.D.Wis.1991). The essential facts are simple. Walgreen has operated a pharmacy in the Southgate Mall in Milwaukee since its opening in 1951. Its current lease, signed in 1971 and carrying a 30-year, 6-month term, contains, as had the only previous lease, a clause in which the landlord, Sara Creek, promises not to lease space in the mall to anyone else who wants to operate a pharmacy or a store containing a pharmacy. Such an exclusivity clause, common in shopping-center leases, is occasionally challenged on antitrust grounds, Milton Handler & Daniel E. Laza-roff, “Restraint of Trade and the Restatement (Second) of Contracts,” 57 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 669, 683-708 (1982); Note, “The Antitrust Implications of Restrictive Covenants in Shopping Center Leases,” 86 Harv.L.Rev. 1201 (1973) — implausibly enough, given the competition among malls; but that is an issue for another day, since in this appeal Sara Creek does not press the objection it made below to the clause on antitrust grounds.

In 1990, fearful that its largest tenant— what in real estate parlance is called the “anchor tenant” — having gone broke was about to close its store, Sara Creek informed Walgreen that it intended to buy out the anchor tenant and install in its place a discount store operated by Phar-Mor Corporation, a “deep discount” chain, rather than, like Walgreen, just a “discount” chain. Phar-Mor's store would occupy 100,000 square feet, of which 12,000 would be occupied by a pharmacy the same size as Walgreen’s. The entrances to the two stores would be within a couple of hundred feet of each other.

Walgreen filed this diversity suit for breach of contract against Sara Creek and Phar-Mor and asked for an injunction against Sara Creek’s letting the anchor premises to Phar-Mor. After an evidentia-ry hearing, the judge found a breach of Walgreen’s lease and entered a permanent injunction against Sara Creek’s letting the anchor tenant premises to Phar-Mor until the expiration of Walgreen’s lease. He did this over the defendants’ objection that Walgreen had failed to show that its remedy at law — damages—for the breach of the exclusivity clause was inadequate. Sara Creek had put on an expert witness who testified that Walgreen’s damages could be readily estimated, and Walgreen had countered with evidence from its employees that its damages would be very difficult to compute, among other reasons because they included intangibles such as loss of goodwill.

Sara Creek reminds us that damages are the norm in breach of contract as in other cases. Many breaches, it points out, are “efficient” in the sense that they allow resources to be moved into a more valuable use. Patton v. Mid-Continent Systems, Inc., 841 F.2d 742, 750-51 (7th Cir.1988). Perhaps this is one — the value of Phar-Mor’s occupancy of the anchor premises may exceed the cost to Walgreen of facing increased competition. If so, society will be better off if Walgreen is paid its damages, equal to that cost, and Phar-Mor is allowed to move in rather than being kept out by an injunction. That is why injunctions are not granted as a matter of course, but only when the plaintiff’s damages remedy is inadequate. Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Carbon County Coal Co., 799 F.2d 265, 279 (7th Cir.1986). Walgreen’s is not, Sara Creek argues; the projection of business losses due to increased competition is a routine exercise in calculation. Damages representing either the present value of lost future profits or (what should be the equivalent, Carusos v. Briarcliff, Inc., 76 Ga. App. 346, 351-52, 45 S.E.2d 802, 806-07 *275(1947)) the diminution in the value of the leasehold have either been awarded or deemed the proper remedy in a number of reported cases for breach of an exclusivity clause in a shopping-center lease. Coach House of Ward Parkway, Inc. v. Ward Parkway Shops, Inc., 471 S.W.2d 464, 473 (Mo.1971); Krikorian v. Dailey, 171 Va. 16, 197 S.E. 442 (1938); PNY Realty Corp. v. Chong Leung Restaurant, 116 Misc.2d 1035, 457 N.Y.S.2d 358 (1982); Saucier v. John-Clai Co., 408 So.2d 27 (La.App.1981); Barr & Sons, Inc. v. Cherry Hill Center, Inc., 90 N.J.Super. 358, 376, 217 A.2d 631, 641 (1966); Renee Cleaners, Inc. v. Good Deal Super Markets of N.J., Inc., 89 N.J.Super. 186, 214 A.2d 437 (App.Div. 1965); Carusos v. Briarcliff, Inc., supra; Annot., “Validity, Construction, and Effect of Lessor’s Covenant Against Use of His Other Property in Competition with the Lessee-Covenantee,” 97 A.L.R.2d 4, 111-117 (§ 28) (1964 and Supp.1983). Why, Sara Creek asks, should they not be adequate here?

Sara Creek makes a beguiling argument that contains much truth, but we do not think it should carry the day. For if, as just noted, damages have been awarded in some cases of breach of an exclusivity clause in a shopping-center lease, injunctions have been issued in others. Handy Andy Home Improvement Centers, Inc. v. American National Bank & Trust Co., 177 Ill.App.3d 647, 126 Ill.Dec. 852, 532 N.E.2d 537 (1988); De Koven Drug Co. v. First National Bank, 27 Ill.App.3d 798, 800, 327 N.E.2d 378, 379 (1975); Regis Corp. v. Fusco Corp., 496 So.2d 833, 835 (Fla.App.1986); Belvin v. Sikes, 2 So.2d 65 (La.App.1941); Child World, Inc. v. South Towne Centre, Ltd., 634 F.Supp. 1121, 1134-35 (S.D.Ohio 1986). The choice between remedies requires a balancing of the costs and benefits of the alternatives. Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329, 64 S.Ct. 587, 591, 88 L.Ed. 754 (1944); Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 440, 64 S.Ct. 660, 674, 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944). The task of striking the balance is for the trial judge, subject to deferential appellate review in recognition of its particularistic, judgmental, fact-bound character. K-Mart Corp. v. Oriental Plaza, Inc., 875 F.2d 907, 915 (1st Cir.1989). As we said in an appeal from a grant of a preliminary injunction — but the point is applicable to review of a permanent injunction as well— “The question foi us [appellate judges] is whether the [district] judge exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances, not what we would have done if we had been in his shoes.” Roland Machinery Co. v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 749 F.2d 380, 390 (7th Cir.1984).

The plaintiff who seeks an injunction has the burden of persuasion — damages are the norm, so the plaintiff must show why his case is abnormal. But when, as in this case, the issue is whether to grant a permanent injunction, not whether to grant a temporary one, the burden is to show that damages are inadequate, not that the denial of the injunction will work irreparable harm. “Irreparable” in the injunction context means not rectifiable by the entry of a final judgment. Diginet, Inc. v. Western Union ATS, Inc., 958 F.2d 1388, 1393 (7th Cir.1992); Vogel v. American Society of Appraisers, 744 F.2d 598, 599 (7th Cir.1984). It has nothing to do with whether to grant a permanent injunction, which, in the usual case anyway, is the final judgment. The use of “irreparable harm” or “irreparable injury” as synonyms for inádequate remedy at law is a confusing usage. It should be avoided. Owen M. Fiss & Doug Rendleman, Injunctions 59 (2d ed. 1984).

The benefits of substituting an injunction for damages are twofold. First, it shifts the burden of determining the cost of the defendant’s conduct from the court to the parties. If it is true that Walgreen’s damages are smaller than the gain to Sara Creek from allowing a second pharmacy into the shopping mall, then there must be a price for dissolving the injunction that will make both parties better off. Thus, the effect of upholding the injunction would be to substitute for the costly processes of forensic fact determination the less costly processes of private negotiation. Second, a premise of our free-market system, and the lesson of experience here and *276abroad as well, is that prices and costs are more accurately determined by the market than by government. A battle of experts is a less reliable method of determining the actual cost to Walgreen of facing new competition than negotiations between Walgreen and Sara Creek over the price at which Walgreen would feel adequately compensated for having to face that competition.

That is the benefit side of injunctive relief but there is a cost side as well. Many injunctions require continuing supervision by the court, and that is costly. Roland Machinery Co. v. Dresser Industries, Inc., supra, 749 F.2d at 391-92; Rodriguez v. VIA Metropolitan Transit System, 802 F.2d 126, 132 (5th Cir.1986); Bethlehem Engineering Export Co. v. Christie, 105 F,2d 933, 935 (2d Cir.1939) (L. Hand, J.). A request for specific performance (a form of mandatory injunction) of a franchise agreement was refused oh this ground in North American Financial Group, Ltd. v. S.M.R. Enterprises, Inc., 583 F.Supp. 691, 699 (N.D.Ill.1984); see Edward Yorio, Contract Enforcement: Specific Performance and Injunctions § 3.3.2 (1989). This ground was also stressed in Rental Development Corp. v. Lavery, 304 F.2d 839, 841-42 (9th Cir.1962), a case involving a lease. Some injunctions are problematic because they impose costs on third parties. Shondel v. McDermott, 775 F.2d 859, 868 (7th Cir.1985). A more subtle cost of in-junctive relief arises from the situation that economists call “bilateral monopoly,” in which two parties can deal only with each other: the situation that an injunction creates. Goldstick v. I.C.M. Realty, 788 F.2d 456, 463 (7th Cir.1986); Milbrew, Inc. v. Commissioner, 710 F.2d 1302, 1306-07 (7th Cir.1983); Chicago & North Western Transportation Co. v. United States, 678 F.2d 665, 667 (7th Cir.1982). The sole seller of widgets selling to the sole buyer of that product would be an example. But so will be the situation confronting Walgreen and Sara Creek if the injunction is upheld. Walgreen can “sell” its injunctive right only to Sara Creek, and Sara Creek can “buy” Walgreen’s surrender of its right to enjoin the leasing of the anchor tenant’s space to Phar-Mor only from Walgreen. The lack of alternatives in bilateral monopoly creates a bargaining range, and the costs of negotiating to a point within that range may be high. Suppose the cost to Walgreen of facing the competition of Phar-Mor at the Southgate Mall would be $1 million, and the benefit to Sara Creek of leasing to Phar-Mor would be $2 million. Then at any price between those figures for a waiver of Walgreen’s injunctive right both parties would be better off, and we expect parties to bargain around a judicial assignment of legal rights if the assignment is inefficient. R.H. Coase, “The Problem of Social Cost,” 3 J. Law & Econ. 1 (1960). But each of the parties would like to engross as much of the bargaining range as possible — Walgreen to press the price toward $2 million, Sara Creek to depress it toward $1 million. With so much at stake, both parties will have an incentive to devote substantial resources of time and money to the negotiation process. The process may even break down, if one or both parties want to create for future use a reputation as a hard bargainer; and if it does break down, the injunction will have brought about an inefficient result. All these are in one form or another costs of the injunctive process that can be avoided by substituting damages.

The costs and benefits of the damages remedy are the mirror of those of the in-junctive remedy. The damages remedy avoids the cost of continuing supervision and third-party effects, and the cost of bilateral monopoly as well. It imposes costs of its own, however, in the form of diminished accuracy in the determination of value, on the one hand, and of the parties’ expenditures on preparing and presenting evidence of damages, and the time of the court in evaluating the evidence, on the other.

The weighing up of all these costs and benefits is the analytical procedure that is or at least should be employed by a judge asked to enter a permanent injunction, with the understanding that if the balance is even the injunction should be withheld. The judge is not required to explicate every *277detail of the analysis and he did not do so here, but as long we are satisfied that his approach is broadly consistent with a proper analysis we shall affirm; and we are satisfied here. The determination of Walgreen’s damages would have been costly in forensic resources and inescapably inaccurate. Roland Machinery Co. v. Dresser Industries, Inc., supra, 749 F.2d at 386; Olympia Equipment Leasing Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 797 F.2d 370, 382 (7th Cir.1986); K-Mart Corp. v. Oriental Plaza, Inc., supra, 875 F.2d at 914-16. The lease had ten years to run. So Walgreen would have had to project its sales revenues and costs over the next ten years, and then project the impact on those figures of Phar-Mor’s competition, and then discount that impact to present value. All but the last step would have been fraught with uncertainty.

We may have given too little weight to such uncertainties in American Dairy Queen Corp. v. Brown-Port Co., 621 F.2d 255, 257 n. 2 (7th Cir.1980), but in that case the district judge had found that the remedy at law was adequate in the circumstances and the movant had failed to make its best argument for inadequacy in the district court. Id. at 259. It is difficult to forecast the profitability of a retail store over a decade, let alone to assess the impact of a particular competitor on that profitability over that period. Of course one can hire an expert to make such predictions, Glen A. Stankee, “Econometric Forecasting of Lost Profits: Using High Technology to Compute Commercial Damages,” 61 Fla.B.J. 83 (1987), and if injunctive relief is infeasible the expert’s testimony may provide a tolerable basis for an award of damages. We cited cases in which damages have been awarded for the breach of an exclusivity clause in a shopping-center lease. But they are awarded in such circumstances not because anyone thinks them a clairvoyant forecast but because it is better to give a wronged person a crude remedy than none at all. It is the same theory on which damages are awarded for a disfiguring injury. No one thinks such injuries readily monetizable, City of Panama, 101 U.S. 453, 464, 25 L.Ed. 1061 (1880); McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc., 826 F.2d 1554, 1557 (7th Cir.1987); Marcus L. Plant, “Damages for Pain and Suffering,” 19 Ohio St.L.J. 200, 205-06 (1958), but a crude estimate is better than letting the wrongdoer get off scot-free (which, not incidentally, would encourage more such injuries). Randall R. Bovbjerg et al, “Valuing Life and Limb in Tort: Scheduling ‘Pain and Suffering,’ ” 83 Nw.U.L.Rev. 908 (1989). Sara Creek presented evidence of what happened (very little) to Walgreen when Phar-Mor moved into other shopping malls in which Walgreen has a pharmacy, and it. was on the right track in putting in comparative evidence. But there was a serious question whether the other malls were actually comparable to the Southgate Mall, so we cannot conclude, in the face of the district judge’s contrary conclusion, that the existence of comparative evidence dissolved the difficulties of computing damages in this case. Sara Creek complains that the judge refused to compel Walgreen to produce all the data that Sara Creek needed to demonstrate the feasibility of forecasting Walgreen’s damages. Walgreen resisted, on grounds of the confidentiality of the data and the cost of producing the massive data that Sara Creek sought. Those are legitimate grounds; and the cost (broadly conceived) they expose of pretrial discovery, in turn presaging complexity at trial, is itself a cost of the damages remedy that injunctive relief saves.

Damages are not always costly to compute, or difficult to compute accurately. In the standard case of a seller’s breach of a contract for the sale of goods where the buyer covers by purchasing the same product in the market, damages are readily calculable by subtracting the contract price from the market price and multiplying by the quantity specified in the contract. But this is not such a case and here damages would be a costly and inaccurate remedy; and on the other side of the balance some of the costs of an injunction are absent and the cost that is present seems low. The injunction here, like one enforcing a covenant not to compete (standardly enforced by injunction, Yorio, supra, 401-08), is a *278simple negative injunction — Sara Creek is not to lease space in the Southgate Mall to Phar-Mor during the term of Walgreen’s lease — and the costs of judicial supervision and enforcement should be negligible. There is no contention that the injunction will harm an unrepresented third party. It may harm Phar-Mor but that harm will be reflected in Sara Creek’s offer to Walgreen to dissolve the injunction. (Anyway Phar-Mor is a party.) The injunction may also, it is true, harm potential customers of Phar-Mor — people who would prefer to shop at a deep-discount store than an ordinary discount store — but their preferences, too, are registered indirectly. The more business Phar-Mor would have, the more rent it will be willing to pay Sara Creek, and therefore the more Sara Creek will be willing to pay Walgreen to dissolve the injunction.

The only substantial cost of the injunction in this case is that it may set off a round of negotiations between the parties. In some cases, illustrated by Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 26 N.Y.2d 219, 309 N.Y.S.2d 312, 257 N.E.2d 870 (1970), this consideration alone would be enough to warrant the denial of injunctive relief. The defendant’s factory was emitting cement dust that caused the plaintiffs harm monetized at less than $200,000, and the only way to abate the harm would have been to close down the factory, which had cost $45 million to build. An injunction against the nuisance could therefore have created a huge bargaining range (could, not would, because it is unclear what the current value of the factory was), and the costs of negotiating to a point within it might have been immense. If the market value of the factory was actually $45 million, the plaintiffs would be tempted to hold out for a price to dissolve the injunction in the tens of millions and the factory would be tempted to refuse to pay anything more than a few hundred thousand dollars. Negotiations would be unlikely to break down completely, given such a bargaining range, but they might well be protracted and costly. There is nothing so dramatic here. Sara Creek does not argue that it will have to close the mall if enjoined from leasing to Phar-Mor. Phar-Mor is not the only potential anchor tenant. Liza Danielle, Inc. v. Jamko, Inc., 408 So.2d 735, 740 (Fla.App. 1982), on which Sara Creek relies, presented the converse case where the grant of the injunction would have forced an existing tenant to close its store. The size of the bargaining range was also a factor in the denial of injunctive relief in Gitlitz v. Plankinton Building Properties, Inc., 228 Wis. 334, 339-40, 280 N.W. 415, 418 (1938).

To summarize, the judge did not exceed the bounds of reasonable judgment in concluding that the costs (including forgone benefits) of the damages remedy would exceed the costs (including forgone benefits) of an injunction. We need not consider whether, as intimated by Walgreen, exclusivity clauses in shopping-center leases should be considered presumptively enforceable by injunctions. Although we have described the choice between legal and equitable remedies as one for case-by-case determination, the courts have sometimes picked out categories of case in which injunctive relief is made the norm. The best-known example is specific performance of contracts for the sale of real property. Anderson v. Onsager, 155 Wis.2d 504, 455 N.W.2d 885 (1990); Okaw Drainage District v. National Distillers & Chemical Corp., 882 F.2d 1241, 1248 (7th Cir.1989); Anthony T. Kronman, “Specific Performance,” 45 U.Chi.L.Rev. 351, 355 and n. 20 (1978). The rule that specific performance will be ordered in such cases as a matter of course is a generalization of the considerations discussed above. Because of the absence of a fully liquid market in real property and the frequent presence of subjective values (many a homeowner, for example, would not sell his house for its market value), the calculation of damages is difficult; and since an order of specific performance to convey a piece of property does not create a continuing relation between the parties, the costs of supervision and enforcement if specific performance is ordered are slight. The exclusivity clause in Walgreen’s lease relates to real estate, but we hesitate to suggest that every contract involving real estate should *279be enforceable as a matter of course by injunctions. Suppose Sara Creek had covenanted to keep the entrance to Walgreen’s store free of ice and snow, and breached the covenant. An injunction would require continuing supervision, and it would be easy enough if the injunction were denied for Walgreen to hire its own ice and snow remover and charge the cost to Sara Creek. Cf. City of Michigan City v. Lake Air Corp., 459 N.E.2d 760 (Ind.App.1984). On the other hand, injunctions to enforce exclusivity clauses are quite likely to be justifiable by just the considerations present here — damages are difficult to estimate with any accuracy and the injunction is a one-shot remedy requiring no continuing judicial involvement. So there is an argument for making injunctive relief presumptively appropriate in such eases, but we need not decide in this ease how strong an argument.

AFFIRMED.

HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge,

concurring.

I gladly join in the affirmance reached in Judge Posner’s expert analysis.

McKEOWN, Circuit Judge.

Jerry McCord appeals the district court’s decision and final judgment following a bench trial. The district court entered an award of damages and a permanent injunction against McCord due to his infringement of two trademarks belonging to Reno Air Racing Association, Inc. (“Reno Air”), in violation of the Lanham Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq. (“Lanham Act”). In addition, the district court found McCord in civil contempt and imposed sanctions based on his violation of an ex parte temporary restraining order (“TRO”) issued the same day the complaint was filed.

*1128This appeal highlights the sometimes routine fashion in which TROs are issued to unsuspecting parties, who, lacking fair notice of the prohibited conduct, may unwittingly invite a contempt citation. We conclude that the TRO was improvidently issued because it failed to comport with the notice and specificity provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 (“Rule 65”). Consequently, we vacate and reverse the district court’s contempt finding and imposition of sanctions. We affirm the district court’s findings and judgment with respect to trademark infringement.

Background

Since 1964, Reno Air has operated the National Championship Air Races, an annual air show at the Reno/Stead Airport in Nevada. The show features airplanes that race around pylons1 for cash prizes and stunt aircraft that perform acrobatic maneuvers. Each year, approximately 80,000 to 90,000 people attend the event, which generates millions of dollars of revenue. Reno Air extensively advertises and promotes the event through a variety of print and electronic media, referring to it both as “Reno Air Races” and “National Championship Air Races.”

Since commencement of the races in 1964, Reno Air has used a logo featuring a checkered pylon with two airplanes circling it (“pylon logo”) to identify the event and merchandise promoting the event. Reno Air is the registered owner of two federal trademarks,2 numbers 1,322,146 and 1,371,797, for the “pylon logo;” the marks are identical, although one is a trademark and the other a service mark. The marks have been, registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office since 1985 and have acquired incontestable status.3 The trademark registrations are in four classes that include entertainment services, printed materials, cloth patches, caps and t-shirts. Through special licensing agreements, Reno Air permits vendors situated inside the gates of the show to sell merchandise bearing the trademarks.

McCord owns Western Sales Distributing Company, a sole proprietorship. Between 1999 and 2002, McCord sold merchandise, including t-shirts, caps and mugs, depicting the term “Reno Air Races” and artwork containing images of at least one airplane and a pylon, from booths located just outside of the gates of the air races. In 1999, McCord sold approximately $4,433 worth of such merchandise; in 2000, he sold $10,152; in 2001, $3,174; and in 2002, $9,152.

Sometime in 2000, McCord received a letter and telephone call from Reno Air’s attorney, who objected to McCord’s sale of merchandise at the air races. The following year, a representative from Reno Air advised McCord that his sale of such merchandise violated Reno Air’s rights. The district court noted that Reno Air was unable to produce a copy of the letter sent to McCord in 2000 and that the testimony was also vague on exactly how clearly Reno Air expressed its objections to McCord’s sale of the merchandise prior to this litigation.

*1129On September 13, 2002, Reno Air filed a complaint in the District of Nevada, alleging McCord’s infringement of the federally registered “pylon logo” mark in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(l)(a) and infringement of the unregistered “Reno Air Races” mark in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). That same day, Reno Air also filed an ex parte application for a TRO pursuant to Rule 65(b) and a motion for a preliminary injunction. Reno Air’s TRO application stated that notice to McCord was unnecessary because “of the immediate and irreparable harm that will occur if the restraining order is not immediately issued ... and because of the significant risk that [McCord] may leave the Reno/Stead Airport area and destroy or conceal [his] infringing merchandise once[he] reeeive[s] notice of the lawsuit.”

The district court granted the application after a telephonic hearing, and issued an ex parte TRO that prohibited McCord from engaging in the following activities:

(1) making, manufacturing, using, distributing, shipping, licensing, selling, developing, displaying, delivering, advertising and/or otherwise marketing or disposing of any goods, packaging or any other items which bear the trademarks set forth in Exhibit F to Mr. Houghton’s declaration, or any confusingly similar variations thereof;

(2) disposing of, destroying, moving, relocating or transferring any and all goods and other items ... bearing the trademarks set forth in Exhibit F to Mr. Houghton’s declaration, or any confusingly similar variations thereof;

(3) disposing of, destroying, moving, relocating or transferring any means for making products having the trademarks set forth in Exhibit F to Mr. Houghton’s declaration, or any confusingly similar variations thereof ...;

(4) disposing of, destroying, moving, relocating or transferring any documents pertaining to the creation, development ... of items bearing the trademarks set forth in Exhibit F to Mr. Houghton’s declaration, or any marks confusingly similar thereto.

“Exhibit F,” to which the TRO referred extensively, contained a picture of a t-shirt design sold by McCord that depicted a stylized image of two airplanes and a checkered pylon, with the words “Reno Air Races” underneath.

Reno Air served McCord with the TRO late in the afternoon on September 13, 2002, the Friday of the air races weekend. McCord was outside the gates of the show when he was served and was packing up for the day. He did not read the TRO until later that evening and over the weekend had difficulty locating an attorney with whom he could consult about the meaning of the injunction. Even after the weekend, finding an attorney in the Reno area who did had not have a conflict of interest as a result of a prior relationship with Reno Air was not easy. McCord finally located an attorney in Carson City, Nevada.

As of Saturday, September 14, 2002, McCord stopped selling t-shirts containing the exact design pictured in Exhibit F. McCord continued to sell merchandise containing the term “Reno Air Races” and depicting a pylon and airplanes until the end of the air show on Sunday, September 15, 2002.

In April 2003, more than six months after the show closed, Reno Air filed a motion for contempt and claimed that McCord violated the TRO. The district court denied this application without prejudice to its renewal at trial. A two-day bench trial was held in February 2004. The district court entered a final judgment in April 2004.

The district court found that McCord infringed “Reno Air Races” and the “pylon *1130logo,” which were protectable marks under the Lanham Act. The district court awarded Reno Air $6,727 in damages arising from the sale of infringing merchandise and permanently enjoined McCord from “making, manufacturing, [or] distributing ... any goods, packaging or any other items which bear the Marks, or any confusingly similar variations thereof.”4 The district court also found McCord in civil contempt for continuing to sell infringing merchandise after being served with the TRO on September 13, 2002. The district court imposed contempt sanctions in an amount equal to Reno Air’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with the TRO and contempt motion.

Analysis

I. Contempt

“We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s civil contempt order, including the decision to impose sanctions.” Hook v. Arizona Dep’t of Corrections, 107 F.3d 1397, 1403 (9th Cir.1997). “[W]e will not reverse unless we have a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment after weighing the relevant factors.” In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993).

“Civil contempt in this context consists of a party’s disobedience to a specific and definite court order by failure to take all reasonable steps within the party’s power to comply.” Id.5 The contempt “ ‘need not be willful,’ ” id. (quoting In re Crystal Palace Gambling Hall, Inc., 817 F.2d 1361, 1365 (9th Cir.1987)); however, a person should not be held in contempt if his action “appears to be based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation of the court’s order.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).

A. Ex Parte Proceeding

We consider first whether the TRO was properly granted ex parte without notice. Rule 65(b) provides, in relevant part:

A[TRO] may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party ... only if (1) it clearly appears ... that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that party’s attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the claim *1131that notice should not be required. Every [TRO] granted without notice shall ... define the injury and state why it is irreparable and why the order was granted without notice.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b) (emphasis added). In Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 94 S.Ct. 1113, 39 L.Ed.2d 435 (1974), the Supreme Court explained that circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte order are extremely limited:

The stringent restrictions imposed ... by Rule 65 on the availability of ex parte temporary restraining orders reflect the fact that our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of a dispute. Ex parte temporary restraining orders are no doubt necessary in certain circumstances, but under federal law they should be restricted to serving their underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.

Id. at 438-39, 94 S.Ct. 1113 (internal citation omitted).

Consistent with this overriding concern, courts have recognized very few circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte TRO. For example, an ex parte TRO may be appropriate “where notice to the adverse party is impossible either because the identity of the adverse party is unknown or because a known party cannot be located in time for a hearing.” Am. Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 322 (7th Cir.1984). Obviously, this exception is inapplicable as Reno Air knew exactly where McCord was — outside of the air show gates — and thus, never suggested that McCord could not be found or that notice would have been, in any way, “impossible.”

In cases where notice could have been given to the adverse party, courts have recognized “a very narrow band of cases in which ex parte orders are proper because notice to the defendant would render fruitless the further prosecution of the action.” Am. Can Co., 742 F.2d at 322. In the trademark arena, such cases include situations where an alleged infringer is likely to dispose of the infringing goods before the hearing. See In the Matter of Vuitton et Fils S.A, 606 F.2d 1, 5 (2d Cir.1979) (“Vuitton ”). To justify an ex parte proceeding on this latter ground, “the applicant must do more than assert that the adverse party would dispose of evidence if given notice.” First Tech. Safety Sys., Inc. v. Depinet, 11 F.3d 641, 650 (6th Cir.1993). “[Pjlaintiffs must show that defendants would have disregarded a direct court order and disposed of the goods within the time it would take for a hearing ... [and] must support such assertions by showing that the adverse party has a history of disposing of evidence or violating court orders or that persons similar to the adverse party have such a history.’.’ Id. at 650-51; see also Vuitton, 606 F.2d at 4-5.

For example, in Vuitton, the company explained the need for an ex parte order by pointing to its experience in eighty-four previous actions against counterfeiters, where Vuitton’s litigation efforts were foiled because a counterfeiter, after receiving notice of an impending injunction, and before the court could hold a hearing, transferred its inventories to other members of “closely-knit distribution networks.” 606 F.2d at 2. The Second Circuit held Vuitton’s showing to be sufficient to justify issuance of an order “narrow in scope and brief in its duration.” Id. at 5. Notably, all Vuitton’s TRO sought to do was “for a few hours ... to maintain the status quo, namely the defendants’ inventory of counterfeit Vuitton merchandise.” Id. at 3.

Reno Air’s TRO application and supporting evidence can be described as *1132thin and barebones at best. The application stated that the TRO “must issue without notice ... because of the significant risk that Defendant may leave the Reno/ Stead Airport area and destroy or conceal [his] infringing merchandise once [he] receive[s] notice of the lawsuit.” The only “evidence” offered to support this assertion was a declaration from Reno Air’s counsel that “[i]n [his] experience, this is a common occurrence when dealing with in-fringers at one time famous events such as the ‘Reno Air Races’ and it is well-recognized in the case law.” This conclusory statement from counsel hardly qualified as evidence and certainly did not link the TRO application to McCord. McCord was no stranger to Reno Air. Curiously, Reno Air did not advise the court of its prior dealings with McCord regarding purported trademark infringement. Nor did the company acknowledge that it had done nothing to enforce its rights following the earlier contacts. Finally, Reno Air offered no support that there was a “significant risk” that McCord, who had been working in the Reno area for many years, “may leave the Reno/Stead Airport area.” Were a single conclusory statement by counsel about infringers sufficient to meet the dictates of Rule 65, then ex parte orders without notice would be the norm and this practice would essentially gut Rule' 65’s notice requirements.

B. Specificity Requirement

The TRO was also deficient for lack of specificity. Rule 65(d) requires that any injunction or restraining order be “specific in terms” and describe “in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d). “If an injunction does not clearly describe prohibited or required conduct, it is not enforceable by contempt.” Gates v. Shinn, 98 F.3d 463, 468 (9th Cir.1996). As the Supreme Court explained in Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n. v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass’n, 389 U.S. 64, 88 S.Ct. 201, 19 L.Ed.2d 236 (1967):

The judicial contempt power is a potent weapon. When it is founded upon a decree too vague to be understood, it can be a deadly one. Congress responded to that danger by requiring that a federal court frame its orders so that those who must obey them will know what the court intends to require and what it means to forbid.

Id. at 76, 88 S.Ct. 201; see also Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 476, 94 S.Ct. 713, 38 L.Ed.2d 661 (1974) (“[T]he specificity provisions of Rule 65(d) are no mere technical requirements. The Rule was designed to prevent uncertainty and confusion on the part of those faced with injunctive orders, and to avoid the possible founding of a contempt citation on a decree too vague to be understood.”). Thus, we look to the language of the TRO to determine if it provided McCord with fair and well-defined notice of the prohibited conduct. Here, the TRO fell short.

The TRO enjoined McCord from making, distributing or disposing of “items which bear the trademarks set forth in Exhibit F to Mr. Houghton’s declaration, or any confusingly similar variations thereof.” McCord suggests that the TRO’s reference to an outside document — Exhibit F — automatically violated Rule 65(d). Although a number of our sister circuits read the “no reference” requirement strictly,6 *1133we have permitted incorporation by reference in certain limited scenarios, for example, where the referenced document is “physically attached to the [order] itself.” State of California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 783 (9th Cir.1998); Henry Hope X-Ray Prods., Inc. v. Marron Carrel, Inc., 674 F.2d 1336, 1343 (9th Cir.1982) (holding that the district court did not err in attaching a confidential appendix to its order that set out the prohibited acts); see also Davis v. San Francisco, 890 F.2d 1438, 1450 (9th Cir.1989) (permitting reference to fire department rules “already binding upon the officers” and where “[i]t is unlikely the officers could argue they were unaware of these rules”).

Here, the district court noted that Exhibit F was “made a part of the [TRO] and provided to McCord at the time that the order was served on him.” Thus, while ordinarily the TRO should not incorporate by reference another document, see Henry Hope, 674 F.2d at 1343, the reference to the attached Exhibit F does not, in and of itself, invalidate the contempt finding. We emphasize, however, that incorporation by reference should be the rare exception rather than the rule, and district courts should be particularly cautious where the injunctive order is issued at the outset of litigation, before the receiving party has acquired a context for understanding the referenced document and the subject matter of the dispute. The language of Rule 65 is exacting and we underscore that the narrow exceptions do not merit expansion, and certainly not in this case.

More problematic in this case is the fact that neither the TRO nor Exhibit F clearly identified and described the “trademarks” at issue. The operative language of the TRO did not reference the trademark registrations and curiously did not describe the marks themselves.7 The referenced attachment, Exhibit F, simply contained a copy of a t-shirt design sold by McCord. The t-shirt included the terms “Reno Air Races,” “Reno, Nevada,” “USA,” “2002,” and a picture of two airplanes positioned to the left of a checkered pylon. Nothing in Exhibit F identified what trademarks were contained in Exhibit F. Looking at this t-shirt design, one is hard pressed to know what trademarks are referenced in the order, whether the “trademarks” invoked in the TRO referred to the t-shirt, the design as a whole, the phrase “Reno Air Races,” all of the words depicted, the checkered pylon, one or more airplanes, the pylon plus one or more airplanes, or some other combination.

In addition to the unexplained “trademarks,” McCord points to the ambiguity of the phrase “confusingly similar variations thereof.” If a reader of the TRO were left in the dark about what trademarks were covered, then surely bootstrapping the order to include “confusingly similar variations thereof’ would leave the reader’s head spinning with more confusion. “Variations of what?” one might ask. Because the underlying order failed to identify the trademarks with sufficient specificity, the order was hardly enforceable as to the “variations thereof’ language.

Ultimately, there are no magic words that automatically run afoul of Rule 65(d), and the inquiry is context-specific. “[T]he fair notice requirement of Rule 65(d) must be applied ‘in the light of the circumstances surrounding [the order’s] entry.’ ” *1134Common Cause v. Nuclear Reg. Comm’n, 674 F.2d 921, 927 (D.C.Cir.1982) (quoting United States v. Christie Indus., Inc., 465 F.2d 1000, 1002 (3d Cir.1971)). This case not only points out the pitfall of incorporating documents by reference in a TRO but also the hazard of failing to identify with particularity the enjoined conduct in conjunction with specific identification and description of the trademarks. The recipient of a TRO, which usually takes effect immediately, should not be left guessing as to what conduct is enjoined. The benchmark for clarity and fair notice is not lawyers and judges, who are schooled in the nuances of trademark law. The “specific terms” and “reasonable detail” mandated by Rule 65(d) should be understood by the lay person, who is the target of the injunction. This is a circumstance, among many in the legal field, that cries out for “plain English.”

Here, the TRO was issued the same day the action commenced, and the parties had no prior litigation history. Although they had engaged in limited communications, Reno Air could not even find the letter it purportedly sent to McCord. Given this backdrop and the failure of the TRO (and Exhibit F) to clearly identify the trademarks at issue, the TRO’s prohibition — i.e. enjoining infringement of “the trademarks set forth in Exhibit F ... or any confusingly similar variations thereof’ — would certainly have left a lay person scratching his head in confusion. The TRO failed to meet even the most minimal fair notice requirement.

As the TRO was improperly issued ex parte and failed to describe the prohibited conduct with specificity, the order cannot serve as the foundation for a finding of civil contempt.8 We vacate and reverse the part of the district court’s order finding McCord in contempt for violating the TRO and imposing contempt sanctions.

II. Trademark Infringement

A claim of trademark infringement under § 1114(l)(a) of the Lanham Act requires a trademark holder to demonstrate: (1) ownership of a valid mark (i.e., a pro-tectable interest), and (2) that the alleged infringer’s use of the mark “ ‘is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive’ ” consumers. KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 408 F.3d 596, 602 (9th Cir.2005) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1114(l)(a)), on remand from 543 U.S. Ill, 125 S.Ct. 542, 160 L.Ed.2d 440 (2004).

Although the district court determined that McCord infringed both the “pylon logo” and the “Reno Air Races” marks, McCord only challenges the district court’s findings with respect to the “pylon logo.” It is undisputed that the “pylon logo” is a registered mark that has become incontestable. “The incontestability provisions of the Lanham Act were designed to provide a means for a trademark holder to ‘quiet title in the ownership of his mark.’ ” Id. at 603 (quoting Park’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189, 198, 105 S.Ct. 658, 83 L.Ed.2d 582 (1985)). An incontestable registration is “conclusive evidence of the validity of the registered mark.” 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b).

A. Genericness and Descriptiveness

On appeal, McCord essentially concedes that Reno Air has an exclusive right to its “unique composite mark” — i.e. the registered “pylon logo.” McCord even goes beyond this concession to suggest that Reno Air has an exclusive right to the distinctive “Eiffel-tower”-like pylon de*1135piction in its registered mark. The pylon trademark contains not only a stylized checkered pylon, but an artistic rendition of two airplane silhouettes that encircle it and lines representing the airplanes’ respective paths around the pylon. In effect, in the face of these concessions, what McCord really asks from us is a prophylactic declaration that pylons in general are generic and that he can use some form of a pylon with impunity. Although we are not unsympathetic to his effort to cabin a safe harbor regarding future use, we are not in the business of providing such advisory opinions, and to the extent that McCord’s future depictions are challenged by Reno Air, it is for the district court to determine in the first instance whether trademark infringement has occurred.

To be sure, even an incontestible mark is subject to challenge as generic. “Generic marks are not capable of receiving protection because they identify the product, rather than the product’s source,” KP Permanent, 408 F.3d at 602, and “a registered mark may be canceled at any time on the grounds that it has become generic.” Park’N Fly, 469 U.S. at 194, 105 S.Ct. 658. However, registered marks are endowed with a strong presumption of validity, and a defendant has the burden of showing genericness by a preponderance of the evidence. Yellow Cab Co. of Sacramento v. Yellow Cab of Elk Grove, Inc., 419 F.3d 925, 928 (9th Cir.2005).

Even construing McCord’s pleadings liberally as asserting the argument that the genericness inquiry should focus on the checkered pylon as the “most salient feature” of the pylon logo, KP Permanent, 408 F.3d at 604, no single feature of the incontestable logo mark — e.g., the checkered pylon or the two airplane silhouettes circling around it with lines representing their trails — merits such an exclusive focus. Thus, the district court correctly focused its validity inquiry on the trademark as a whole and appropriately concluded that McCord failed to meet his burden of showing that the registered pylon logo had become generic. See California Cooler, Inc. v. Loretto Winery, Ltd., 774 F.2d 1451, 1455 (9th Cir.1985) (“[T]he validity of a trademark is to be determined by viewing the trademark as a whole.... [T]he composite may become a distinguishing mark even though its components individually cannot”).

McCord’s position that the “pylon logo” is an invalid descriptive mark that has not acquired secondary meaning is foreclosed by hornbook trademark law. “[A] defendant in a trademark infringement action cannot assert that an incontestable mark is invalid because it is descriptive and lacks secondary meaning.” KP Permanent, 408 F.3d at 606; see Park’N Fly, 469 U.S. at 196, 105 S.Ct. 658 (holding that unlike genericness, “[mjere descriptiveness is not recognized ... as a basis for challenging an incontestable mark”).

B. Likelihood of Confusion

The core element of trademark infringement is whether customers are likely to be confused about the source or sponsorship of the products. Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd. v. Epix, Inc., 304 F.3d 936, 941 (9th Cir.2002). We review the district court’s determination of likelihood of confusion for clear error. GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1204 (9th Cir.2000). “If the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, we may not reverse even though ... as the trier of fact, we would have weighed the evidence differently.” Interstellar, 304 F.3d at 941.

An eight-factor test — the so-called Sleekcraft factors — guides the assessment of whether a “likelihood of confusion” ex*1136ists. AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979).9 The district court applied the eight-factor Sleek-craft test to the “pylon logo” and “Reno Air Races” marks and made explicit findings based on the evidence at trial, including the following: (1) Reno Air’s trademarks were “strong” and it had “expended substantial sums of money and effort in advertising and promoting;” (2) McCord sold substantially similar merchandise in “extremely close proximity to the Reno Air Races” — i.e., McCord’s booths were “directly outside the gate;” (3) McCord’s merchandise contained substantially similar marks with an “airplane pylon motif and the use of words ‘Reno Air Races’ prominently displayed;” (4) “a number of customers asked whether the defendant was selling official merchandise, indicating that there was confusion as to whether or not the defendant was affiliated with the Reno Air Races event as an authorized sponsor;” (5) “customers [did] not exercise a great deal of care in selecting t-shirts and other merchandise which is relatively inexpensive;” (6) McCord intended to “trade off plaintiffs goodwill;” and (7) there was a “strong possibility” that McCord would expand his business because he testified that “he hoped to expand his services and operations.” Based on these findings, the district court concluded that McCord’s use of the marks was likely to confuse the public as to the source of the goods.

McCord does not challenge the district court’s finding of infringement with respect to the “Reno Air Races” mark. As to the “pylon logo,” he challenges the district court’s findings with respect to a single factor — the “similarity of the marks.” He argues that the district court erred because the airplane/ pylon motif used in his merchandise does not resemble Reno Air’s “pylon logo.” In his brief, McCord summarizes this argument as follows: “Now Appellate court, please compare these two. They don’t look anything alike, do they?”

We note at the outset that “the legal question is not whether the marks look similar to us but whether they look similar to ordinary consumers” of the products, and it is the district court that “heard testimony on that subject and received evidence of actual confusion.” Scandia Down Corp. v. Euroquilt, Inc., 772 F.2d 1423, 1428-29 (7th Cir.1985). “Our job as an appellate court is not to reweigh the evidence.” Levi Strauss & Co. v. Blue Bell, Inc., 778 F.2d 1352, 1360 (9th Cir.1985) (en banc). Thus, we reject McCord’s argument that we should apply de novo review to the district court’s findings because we are in as a good a position as the trial court to compare McCord’s designs to Reno Air’s trademark. See id. at 1355 (explaining that de novo review of likelihood of confusion “would demand a significant diversion of appellate court resources to a task which more properly belongs to the district court judge”).

The district court’s findings are detailed and reference evidence not only of actual consumer confusion but of the practical, real world effect of McCord selling unofficial Reno Air Races merchandise directly outside the gates of the air show. In addition, to the extent that McCord’s merchandise included a depiction of the airplane/pylon motif, that design did not appear alone but was accompanied by the *1137“Reno Air Races” mark or some combination of the terms “Reno” and “Air Races.”

When viewed in isolation, it is true that there is no identical resemblance between the airplane/pylon motif in McCord’s designs and Reno Air’s registered “pylon logo.” For example, the airplanes in McCord’s design contain greater detail than the plane silhouettes in the “pylon logo,” and unlike the “pylon logo,” the pylon in McCord’s design has a flag above it and is not centered between the planes. However, similarity of the marks is but one factor in the Sleekcraft test, albeit an important one, and a court does not consider the similarity of the marks in the abstract, but rather “in light of the way the marks are encountered in the marketplace and the circumstances surrounding the purchase.” Lindy Pen Co. v. Bic Pen Corp., 725 F.2d 1240, 1245 (9th Cir.1984).

The confusing similarity arose from the fact that McCord sold merchandise featuring the airplane/pylon motif alongside the terms “Reno Air Races,” outside the gates of the air show, in close proximity to the sale of official merchandise. Considering the airplane/pylon depictions in the context in which they appeared to ordinary consumers in the market-place, and “[w]eigh-ing the marks’ similarities more heavily than their differences,” Rodeo Collection, Ltd. v. West Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir.1987), the district court did not clearly err in finding substantial similarity. McCord does not dispute the district court’s remaining factual findings with respect to likelihood of confusion, including evidence of actual consumer confusion, which we have emphasized “is strong evidence that future confusion is likely.... ” Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, 6 F.3d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir.1993). Finally, it bears noting that McCord’s acknowledgment that he has no right to use the “Reno Air Races” mark should, standing alone, take the air out of his argument that his composite designs pass muster. The district court employed a comprehensive likelihood of confusion analysis and its findings were not clearly erroneous.

C. Permanent Injunction

In addition to an award of damages, the district court permanently enjoined McCord from selling items “which bear the Marks [i.e., the ‘pylon logo’ and ‘Reno Air Races’ trademarks], or any confusingly similar variations thereof.”10 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) vests the district court with the “power to grant injunctions according to principles of equity and upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable, to prevent the violation of any right” of the trademark owner. The Supreme Court recently reiterated that district courts should apply “traditional equitable principles” in deciding whether to grant permanent injunctive relief, eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 1840, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006),11 and the decision is “an act of equitable *1138discretion by the district court, renewable on appeal for abuse of discretion.” Id. at 1839.

McCord does not point to any error in the district court’s assessment or application of traditional equitable principles. Instead, McCord challenges the permanent injunction on the ground that he cannot be enjoined from being able to depict “any and all visualizations of a checkered pylon.” McCord overreads the injunction language. Significantly, the injunction only enjoined him from infringing on Reno Air’s “Marks” — defined by the district court as “the ‘pylon logo’ and ‘Reno Air Races’ trademarks and service marks”— and “any confusingly similar variations thereof.” 12 McCord emphasizes that his argument is pylon-specific and that he has never suggested that the district court erred when it enjoined him from depicting a checkered pylon circled by two airplanes.

Like the genericness challenge, McCord’s objection to the permanent injunction is really an attempt to solicit our assurance that he can depict “any and all checkered pylons” in the future. In support of that claim he points to record evidence that the notion of a pylon is generic and universal. As with his trademark challenge, we decline to provide such prophylactic assurances or to address trademark infringement in the abstract. The district court determined that McCord infringed the specific “pylon logo” and “Reno Air Races” marks, his continued use posed a strong likelihood of confusion, and Reno Air’s remedy at law was inadequate to compensate for the injury. We con-elude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting permanent in-junctive relief with respect to those marks.

III. Laches

McCord argues that the district court should have applied the equitable defense of laches to bar Reno Air’s claims of trademark infringement with respect to the “Reno Air Races” mark and the “pylon logo.” “Laches is an equitable time limitation on a party’s right to bring suit ... [and] is a valid defense to Lanham Act claims.” Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc., 304 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir.2002) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Although the district court did not make express findings with respect to McCord’s laches defense, it specifically denied “each” of McCord’s defenses. Thus, we may assume that the district court rejected the laches defense.13 Clamp Mfg. Co. v. Enco Mfg. Co., 870 F.2d 512, 515 (9th Cir.1989). We review this decision for an abuse of discretion. In re Beaty, 306 F.3d 914, 921 (9th Cir.2002) (clarifying that the appropriate standard of review for laches determinations is abuse of discretion).

Laches bars trademark infringement claims “only where the trademark holder knowingly allowed the infringing mark to be used without objection for a lengthy period of time.” Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. West Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1061 (9th Cir.1999). “While laches and the statute of limitations are distinct defenses ... [i]f the plaintiff filed suit *1139within the analogous limitations period, the strong presumption is that laches is inapplicable.” Jarrow, 304 F.3d at 835. If the plaintiff filed suit outside this analogous period, “courts have often presumed that laches is applicable.” Id. at 836. Because the Lanham Act contains no explicit statute of limitation, courts “borrow” the analogous state time period, id., which the parties here agree is three years under Nevada’s fraud or “catchall” statutes of limitation. Nev.Rev.Stat. § 11.190(3).

“In determining the presumption for laches, the limitations period runs from the time the plaintiff knew or should have known about his ... cause of action.” Jarrow, 304 F.3d at 838. “This principle is grounded in the fact that laches penalizes inexcusable dilatory behavior; if the plaintiff legitimately was unaware of the defendant’s conduct, laches is no bar to suit.” Id. In addition “[a] party asserting laches must show that it suffered prejudice as a result of the plaintiffs unreasonable delay in filing suit.” Id. at 835.

There is no evidence that Reno Air knew of McCord’s infringement before 2000. In 2000, Reno Air attempted to contact McCord to object to his sale of merchandise outside of the air show. Although McCord argues that Reno Air should have known of his infringing activities from 1990 to 1999 because he sold similar merchandise to certain retail outlets in the Reno area, the record demonstrates a mere handful of limited sales (i.e., less than a hundred t-shirts) during this period and no evidence of knowledge by Reno Air. Perhaps the earliest that Reno Air should have known about McCord’s infringing conduct was in 1999, the year that McCord began selling merchandise outside the gates of the air show.

Reno Air brought suit in 2002, within three years of when it knew or reasonably should have known of McCord’s infringing conduct; thus, the “strong presumption is that laches is inapplicable.” Id. McCord has not demonstrated prejudice sufficient to overcome this strong presumption. See Shouse v. Pierce County, 559 F.2d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir.1977) (“It is extremely rare for laches to be effectively invoked when a plaintiff has filed his action before limitations in an analogous action at law has run.”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply laches.

IV. Exclusion of Testimony

Upon Reno Air’s motion, the district court excluded the testimony of Thorton Audrang because he was not identified in the pretrial order or listed in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 disclosures. McCord contends that this evidentiary ruling was reversible error. Audr,ang was a former manager at Reno Air who was to testify that “he never felt [that] Reno Air had a trademark right in the term ‘Reno Air Races’ ” prior to this case. Not only is this point moot because McCord does not challenge the district court’s findings as to the “Reno Air Races” mark, even if the testimony were admissible, the district court was well within its discretion to exclude the witness.

“A court may exclude testimony from witnesses not listed in the pre-trial witness list.” Price v. Seydel, 961 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir.1992). When deciding to exclude testimony, a court should consider the following factors:

(1) the prejudice or surprise in fact of the party against whom the excluded witness would have testified;

(2) the ability of that party to cure the prejudice;

(3) the extent to which waiver of the rule against calling unlisted witnesses would disrupt the orderly and efficient trial of the case ...;

(4) bad faith or willfulness in failing to comply with the court’s order.

*1140Id. (quoting Spray-Rite Serv. Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 684 F.2d 1226, 1245 (7th Cir.1982), aff'd on other grounds, 465 U.S. 752, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984)). The district court gave due consideration to these factors and determined that McCord’s repeated failure to disclose the witness was willful and Reno Air would be prejudiced if the testimony was permitted:

I’m very troubled because clearly, [McCord’s] counsel kn[ew] about [this witness] for some time, didn’t move to amend the pretrial order, didn’t list him in the pre-trial order ... so that [Reno Air’s] counsel then would have any opportunity to respond to it, and would have had an opportunity to take a deposition before the trial.

Trial by surprise is no longer countenanced. The district court’s exclusion order was not an abuse of discretion. See Spray-Rite, 684 F.2d at 1245 (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion where it “gave due consideration to these factors” and concluded that permitting the excluded witness’s testimony would cause prejudice to the other party who “did not have adequate time to prepare for the witness”).

Conclusion

The TRO cannot support a finding of civil contempt because it was improperly issued ex parte and failed to describe the prohibited conduct with specificity. We vacate and reverse paragraphs 5 and 6 of the district court’s Final Judgment finding McCord in contempt for violating the TRO and imposing contempt sanctions. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.

VACATED and REVERSED in part; AFFIRMED in part.