General Retirement System v. Snyder
822 F. Supp. 2d 686
E.D. Mich.2011Background
- This is a declaratory-judgment challenge to Section 19(l)(m) of Public Act 4 of 2011 (Local Government and School District Fiscal Accountability Act).
- Plaintiffs are Detroit pension systems (GRS and PFRS) and their trustees, suing Governor Snyder and Treasurer Dillon.
- Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Section 19(l)(m) if an emergency manager is appointed for Detroit.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing/ripe review and moved for Rule 11 sanctions.
- The court held the claims are not ripe and dismissed, and denied sanctions.
- No emergency manager has been appointed and no actions under the act have affected plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the action is ripe and has standing. | Plaintiffs allege imminent harm if 19(l)(m) is used against pension boards. | Ripeness/standing fail because harm is speculative and contingent on future events. | Not ripe; lack of imminent injury and insufficient record for adjudication. |
| Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear pre-enforcement challenges. | Federal courts may hear pre-enforcement challenges under the Declaratory Judgment Act. | Judicial review is premature given contingent future events and lack of concrete controversy. | No jurisdiction at this stage; not a justiciable controversy. |
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions should be imposed for filing this action. | Prematurity of the suit was not a basis for sanctions given uncertainty. | Sanctions warranted for filing a premature, unfounded claim. | Sanctions denied; arguments not frivolous. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Rifle Ass’n of America v. Magaw, 132 F.3d 272 (6th Cir. 1997) (establishes standing/ripe-review framework and justiciability)
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1937) (justiciable controversy requires concrete real interests)
- Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 651 F.3d 529 (6th Cir. 2011) (emphasizes imminence of harm in standing/ripe analysis)
- United Steelworkers of America, Local 2116 v. Cyclops Corp., 860 F.2d 189 (6th Cir. 1988) (ripe-check factors and development of factual record)
- McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2003) (contingent future events rendering case non-ripe)
- Shenango Inc. v. Apfel, 307 F.3d 174 (3d Cir. 2002) (takings analysis is fact-intensive and requires record)
- Ammex, Inc. v. Cox, 351 F.3d 697 (6th Cir. 2003) (ripeness factors and pre-enforcement review considerations)