Platt v. Board of Commissioners on Grievances
769 F.3d 447
6th Cir.2014Background
- Joseph Platt, an attorney, formed a campaign committee and sought to run for judicial office in Ohio; Canon 4 of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct restricts personal endorsements, public political party speeches, direct in-person solicitation of campaign funds, and limits when campaign committees may receive contributions.
- Platt sued to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of those Canon 4 provisions as applied to non-sitting judicial candidates, alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations.
- The district court denied the preliminary injunction, finding Platt had not shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits and that the balance of equities and public interest did not favor injunctive relief.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit addressed Article III limits: standing, ripeness, and mootness (including the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" doctrine) after Platt admitted he would not appear on the 2014 ballot.
- The Sixth Circuit concluded Platt had standing and the case was not moot (capable of repetition yet evading review), but affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction because Platt failed to show a strong likelihood of success on the merits and the district court did not abuse its discretion in balancing the Winter factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Ripeness | Platt intends to engage in speech proscribed by Canon 4 and faces credible threat of enforcement, so injury is imminent | State argued Platt might not be a current candidate and the challenge could be speculative | Court: Platt has injury-in-fact and the threat of enforcement is credible; standing and ripeness satisfied |
| Mootness | Platt argued his challenge survives under "capable of repetition, yet evading review" because he plans to run again | State argued Platt was not a 2014 candidate and claim might be moot | Court: Case not moot — fits capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review doctrine |
| Likelihood of success on the merits (First Amendment) | Platt: Canon 4 infringes his core political speech (endorsements, solicitations, timing of contributions) | State: Canon 4 serves compelling interests in judicial integrity, impartiality, and avoiding appearance of impropriety; Code narrowed after Carey | Court: On de novo review, Platt did not show a strong likelihood of success; state interests persuasive and precedent supports constitutionality |
| Preliminary injunction balance (Winter factors / abuse of discretion) | Platt argued irreparable First Amendment harm and public interest favor injunction | State argued harm to sitting judges, public interest in preserving Code through merits process, and reduced need for expediency given Platt not on 2014 ballot | Court: District court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the four factors; denial of preliminary injunction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Carey v. Wolnitzek, 614 F.3d 189 (6th Cir.) (guiding precedent on judicial-candidate speech and limits on judicial conduct rules)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements for injury-in-fact)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (2014) (pre-enforcement First Amendment challenges: credible threat of enforcement and ripeness)
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (preliminary injunctions are extraordinary relief)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (four-factor standard for preliminary injunctions)
- McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (review standards for constitutional questions and injunctions)