Cummings v. Husted
795 F. Supp. 2d 677
S.D. Ohio
2011

Background

  • Three consolidated cases challenge Ohio Secretary of State and Elections Commission subpoenas related to LetOhioVote.org's campaign-finance investigation.
  • LetOhioVote.org sought to place a referendum on video lottery terminal provisions from HB 1; the issue ultimately did not appear on the ballot.
  • The Secretary issued multiple rounds of subpoenas; subpoenas targeted individuals with addresses in Virginia and cited Ohio law to compel appearance and document production.
  • State-court actions in Ohio sought to quash or limit subpoenas; the Ohio Supreme Court and lower state courts addressed authority to issue subpoenas and the Secretary’s investigatory powers.
  • These federal actions were removed to this court; plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and, in LetOhioVote.org, declaratory and constitutional claims.
  • Secretary moved to dissolve the state-court injunctions and to dismiss the LetOhioVote.org case; the court denied dissolution and granted dismissal in part.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Authority to subpoena out-of-state witnesses Cummings/New Models/Crawford lack authority; subpoenas travel to Virginia exceed Ohio power. Secretary may investigate and issue subpoenas under ORC 3501.05; may extend to out-of-state witnesses. Secretary lacks authority to subpoena out-of-state witnesses; injunction issued.
Effect of state-court injunction after removal Injunction remains binding and merits should be decided in federal court. Post-removal status limits continued effect of state injunction; court decides anew. State injunction survives for federal-review purposes but subject to federal control; merits addressed.
Likelihood of success on merits for injunctive relief Plaintiffs show authority issues and risk of irreparable harm absent injunction. Authority to issue subpoenas and balance of equities unresolved; state interests prevail. Plaintiffs demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits; injunctive relief granted to prohibit out-of-state subpoenas.
Younger abstention and Younger waiver LetOhioVote.org did not have adequate opportunity in state court to raise federal claims; abstention inappropriate. State proceedings pose adequate opportunity; Younger applies; abstention warranted. Younger abstention applied to LetOhioVote.org; case dismissed without prejudice or stayed pending state resolution.

Key Cases Cited

  • Freeman v. Bee Machine Co., 319 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1943) (removal preserves pre-removal injunctions unless dissolved)
  • Sturgill v. Chema Nord Delekkemi Nobel Indus., 687 F. Supp. 351 (S.D. Ohio 1988) (procedural posture governs removal effects on injunctions)
  • Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1974) (removal places case in federal court where merits are evaluated)
  • Duncan v. Gegan, 101 U.S. 810 (U.S. 1880) (historical basis for removal enabling federal review)
  • Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. Cafcomp Sys., Inc., 119 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 1997) (requirement to state specific findings for injunctions; balancing factors)
  • Chabad of S. Ohio & Congregation Lubavitch v. City of Cincinnati, 363 F.3d 427 (6th Cir. 2004) (four-factor test for preliminary injunctions; predominate factors)
  • Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1984) (Eleventh Amendment and state-official relief limitations)
  • Lapides v. Bd. of Regents, 535 U.S. 613 (U.S. 2002) (removal constitutes waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity)
  • Habich v. City of Dearborn, 331 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2003) (collateral claim exception to Younger abstention)
  • Am. Family Prepaid Legal Corp. v. Columbus Bar Ass'n., 498 F.3d 328 (6th Cir. 2007) (narrow Habich collateral-source exception to Younger)
  • Am. Fed'n of State, County & Mun. Employees v. Tristano, 898 F.2d 1302 (7th Cir. 1990) (principles for collateral federal claims in state proceedings)
  • Kelm v. Hyatt, 44 F.3d 415 (6th Cir. 1995) (Younger abstention standards and exceptions)
  • Brindley v. McCullen, 61 F.3d 507 (6th Cir. 1995) (abstention considerations in federalization of state claims)
  • Kalniz v. Ohio State Dental Bd., 699 F. Supp. 2d 966 (S.D. Ohio 2010) (district court on state-subpoena authority and scope)
  • Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1982) (three-part test for abstention)
  • Tindall v. Wayne County Friend of the Court, 269 F.3d 533 (6th Cir. 2001) (Younger abstention framework)
  • Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592 (U.S. 1975) (exception to Younger abstention for unconstitutional statute)
  • Citizens in Charge v. Brunner, 2010 WL 55337 (S.D. Ohio 2010) (Younger abstention applicability analysis (note: WL citation only))
Read the full case