Concerned Pastors for Social Action v. Khouri
844 F.3d 546
6th Cir.2016Background
- Flint switched its water source to the Flint River in 2014–15 without proper corrosion control, causing elevated lead levels and widespread exposure; the City later returned to Detroit water and began implementing corrosion control in Dec. 2015.
- State and federal responders distributed filters, cartridges, bottled water, and test kits; by mid‑2016 the State had visited every residence and reported ~96% of homes received new filters and multiple points of distribution and a 211 hotline existed.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) seeking injunctive relief; the district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring door‑to‑door bottled‑water deliveries to non‑exempt Flint households until each home has a properly installed and maintained filter (with opt‑outs and exemptions).
- Michigan (State Defendants) appealed and moved for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal, arguing the injunction is overbroad, lacks evidentiary support, and imposes large costs (estimated ~$10.5 million/month).
- The Sixth Circuit denied the stay: it concluded the State Defendants had a low likelihood of success on the merits, would not suffer irreparable harm from requiring deliveries, the injunction was tailored to address the systemic harm, and the public interest weighed against a stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on the merits under SDWA | State is violating SDWA/Lead & Copper Rule (insufficient corrosion control and monitoring), justifying injunctive relief | State says it now complies with monitoring and corrosion‑control improvements and thus is unlikely to be liable | Court: State has slim likelihood of success; stay denied because plaintiffs showed sufficient basis to maintain injunction |
| Irreparable harm to movant (State) from injunction | Delivery program will cost millions monthly, strain resources, and impede recovery efforts | Plaintiffs say costs are overstated and funds remain available; immediate access to safe water is urgent | Court: State did not show irreparable harm; cost estimate unsupported and funding exists; factor favors denying stay |
| Irreparable harm / public interest (residents) | Injunction unnecessary because current distribution systems, 211 hotline, and functional‑needs program suffice | Plaintiffs: residents still lack reliable access; improperly installed filters leave people at risk; injunction protects public health | Court: continued lack of safe, reliable drinking water causes irreparable harm to residents; public interest supports injunction |
| Scope and tailoring of remedy (overbreadth) | Plaintiffs: targeted delivery until filters are inspected is narrowly tailored to insure safe water access | State: door‑to‑door deliveries to ~30k homes are disproportionate, not tied to current violations, and will divert resources | Court: injunction is properly tailored to systemic harms and limited by exemptions; not overbroad for stay purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (stay factors and standards for stays pending appeal)
- Ohio State Conference of N.A.A.C.P. v. Husted, 769 F.3d 385 (6th Cir. 2014) (preliminary‑injunction/stay considerations)
- Serv. Emps. Int’l Union Local 1 v. Husted, 698 F.3d 341 (6th Cir. 2012) (stay/prioritization of injunction factors)
- In re EPA, 803 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2015) (balancing interrelated stay factors)
- United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (corporate/state control principles relevant to liability for public‑system operations)
- Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (injunctive relief must be tied to identified violations; limits on judicially imposed remedies)
- Northeast Ohio Coal. for Homeless v. Husted, 696 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2012) (injunctions must be tailored to identified harms)
- Howe v. City of Akron, 801 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2015) (scope and tailoring of injunctive relief)