Eric O'Keefe v. John Chisholm
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18356
7th Cir.2014Background
- Federal district court enjoined Wisconsin John Doe investigation into campaign-finance issues; Anti-Injunction Act §2283 invoked, court treated as anti-suit injunction subject to Mitchum framework.
- John Doe proceeding overseen by Milwaukee County Judge Peterson; Schmitz as special prosecutor; subpoena served on Eric O’Keefe of Wisconsin Club for Growth seeking broad records.
- Plaintiffs moved to quash subpoenas as violative of state secrecy and anonymity rights; Peterson quashed on grounds evidence insufficient to show state-law violation.
- Plaintiffs filed federal suit seeking injunction and damages; court previously granted broad injunction ordering return/destroy of documents and halting cooperation.
- Question whether federal intrusion into state criminal investigation is proper given abstention doctrine and federalism principles; court discusses Younger abstention and equity/comity considerations.
- Court concludes district court abused discretion, merits of federal relief limited by qualified immunity; remands with instructions to dismiss, uphold sealed-document order, and defer to Wisconsin courts on state-law issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal injunction against the Wisconsin investigation was proper | O’Keefe/Club argued for federal relief | Peterson/State argued abstention and state-law resolution | Injunction reversed; no federal injunction proper |
| Whether plaintiffs suffer irreparable injury from continued investigation | Donations would dry up due to investigation | Injury not irreparable given prior state relief and ongoing appellate review | Not irreparable; equity factors weigh against federal relief |
| Whether plaintiffs have adequate remedies at law | State court remedies ineffective for constitutional questions | Legal remedies exist in state court | Yes, adequate remedies at law; federal relief not warranted |
| Whether federal relief is appropriate given principles governing abstention and First Amendment scrutiny | State regulation of coordination violates First Amendment or is unsettled | Federal court should not intrude into state criminal investigations; Younger applies | Not appropriate; imprudent to issue federal relief; abstention principles disfavour intrusion |
| Whether defendants have qualified immunity from damages | Unconstitutional injunction and enforcement actions violated clearly established law | Officials acted on debatable First Amendment issues; not clearly established | Defendants possess qualified immunity; district court’s damages liability rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (U.S. 1972) (anti-suit injunction under §1983 limited by equity/comity principles)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1971) (federal abstention principle in state proceedings; Younger abstention)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (coordination regulation and campaign-finance limits; First Amendment considerations)
- Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1983) (sealed grand jury proceedings; state secrecy interests)
- Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (S. Ct. 2011) (standards for clearly established law; avoidance of overly abstract rules)
- Beazer v. New York City Transit Authority, 440 U.S. 568 (U.S. 1979) (statutory/constitutional questions should be resolved on existing precedent)