2 F.4th 548
6th Cir.2021Background
- Tennessee law (Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-2-115(b)(7)) bars first-time voters who registered by mail or online from voting absentee; they must vote in person to present ID.
- Plaintiffs (two individuals and five organizations, including the Tennessee NAACP) sued and sought a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the first-time voter restriction; the district court granted the injunction.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision in Fisher v. Hargett narrowed the state’s COVID-era absentee eligibility, and under that decision the individual member (Corey DeWayne Sweet) used to establish associational standing no longer qualified for absentee voting.
- Defendants appealed, arguing plaintiffs lack Article III jurisdiction (standing or mootness); the Sixth Circuit previously denied a stay but, after full briefing, considered the merits.
- The Sixth Circuit majority vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction on the ground plaintiffs had not shown a substantial likelihood that their claim remained justiciable (mootness), because Sweet no longer had a live stake and the case was not shown to be "capable of repetition, yet evading review."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Associational standing (was Sweet a member?) | Sweet and NAACP say Sweet was a member when the amended complaint was filed, giving Tennessee NAACP associational standing. | Gov’t disputed membership timing, arguing Sweet wasn’t a member at filing. | Court: district court’s factual finding that Sweet was a member was not clearly erroneous; associational standing initially established. |
| Mootness / capable of repetition | Plaintiffs say the claim remains justiciable because election-law disputes are typically "capable of repetition, yet evading review," and NAACP has many members likely to be affected in future elections. | Defendants say Sweet is no longer eligible for absentee voting after Fisher, so no live controversy; the COVID-specific facts make repetition unlikely. | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show a substantial likelihood the dispute remains justiciable; Sweet’s claim is moot and the COVID context makes repetition unlikely; injunction vacated. |
| Scope of preliminary-injunction jurisdictional inquiry | Plaintiffs: standing at filing was satisfied and associational standing suffices for injunctive relief; mootness exception should apply. | Defendants: exigent events (Fisher) removed concrete stake; injunction should be vacated. | Court: Standing at filing met, but mootness analyzed at each stage; because plaintiffs didn't show ongoing interest, jurisdiction lacking for continued preliminary relief. |
| Merits (Anderson-Burdick framework) | Plaintiffs argued the first-time restriction imposes at least a moderate burden on voting and likely fails Anderson-Burdick balancing. | Defendants argued minimal burden and legitimate state interests (fraud prevention, HAVA compliance). | Majority did not resolve merits because mootness dispositive; concurring and dissenting opinions discuss Anderson-Burdick—dissent would have reached and found plaintiffs likely to succeed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing elements)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing and mootness distinctions; injunctive-relief standing)
- Cleveland Branch, N.A.A.C.P. v. City of Parma, 263 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2001) (organizational standing and mootness analysis)
- Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell, 462 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2006) (capable-of-repetition doctrine in election cases)
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (capable-of-repetition, yet-evading-review doctrine)
- Lawrence v. Blackwell, 430 F.3d 368 (6th Cir. 2005) (election-law disputes and the relaxed second prong for repetition)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (Anderson balancing for election regulations)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (Anderson-Burdick framework for burdens on voting)
- Fisher v. Hargett, 604 S.W.3d 381 (Tenn. 2020) (Tennessee Supreme Court narrowing COVID-era absentee eligibility)