Greg McNeilly v. Terri Land
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13550
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- McNeilly Challenged Michigan’s MCL § 169.252(1) individual contribution limits as applied to state House and Senate candidates.
- District court denied McNeilly’s motion for a preliminary injunction and McNeilly appealed the denial.
- Statute limits: $500 to state House and $1,000 to state Senate per election cycle; proceedings focused on First Amendment rights to political association and expression.
- McNeilly argued the limits are not closely drawn to a substantial state interest, not indexed for inflation, and impede challengers’ competitiveness; he sought expedited, preliminary relief.
- District court found no irreparable harm, weighed harms to defendant/public, and held no likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to justify injunction; the denial was affirmed on appeal.
- McNeilly’s damages, timing (pre-November election), and public interest factors supported denying the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Michigan’s contribution limits closely drawn to a substantial state interest? | McNeilly; likelihood of success. | Land; limits are closely drawn. | No clear likelihood of success on merits. |
| Does temporary deprivation of First Amendment rights constitute irreparable harm here? | McNeilly; irreparable harm presumed. | Land; irreparable harm not shown without likelihood of success. | Irreparable harm not established due to lack of likelihood of success. |
| Do the balance of harms favor issuing an injunction? | McNeilly; no proven quid pro quo; harms minimal. | Land; would harm public election administration without limits. | Harms to public and defendant outweighed injunction. |
| Is the public interest served by enjoining enforcement of the limits? | McNeilly; more robust political debate. | Land; risk of corruption/appearance of corruption. | Public interest favored maintaining limits. |
| Did the district court properly apply Randall v. Sorrell framework to Michigan’s limits? | McNeilly; Randall requires lower bounds showings. | Land; Randall distinguishable; no strong showing. | District court did not abuse discretion; Randall distinguished. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court (1976)) (contribution limits subject to lesser scrutiny than expenditures)
- Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (U.S. Supreme Court (2006)) (plurality: five Randall factors for close drawing of limits; inflation indexing discussed)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (U.S. Supreme Court (1976)) (irreparable harm when First Amendment rights threatened or impaired)
- Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (U.S. Supreme Court (2000)) (anti-corruption interest extends to appearance of corruption)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (U.S. Supreme Court (2010)) (independent expenditures and corruption concerns distinguished)
- Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2000) (highly deferential review in preliminary injunctions)
- American Imaging Services, Inc. v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 963 F.2d 855 (6th Cir. 1992) (preliminary injunction standards and balancing factors)
- In re Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 963 F.2d 855 (6th Cir. 1992) (publication of decision guiding injunction analysis)