Priorities USA v. Dana Nessel, 978 F.3d 976

Background

Three voter-advocacy organizations sued to enjoin two Michigan election statutes; one challenged statute (MCL § 168.931(1)(f)) prohibits hiring a vehicle to convey ambulatory voters to polls (the "voter-transportation law").
The Michigan Attorney General (AG) was the named defendant and declined to appeal the district court’s preliminary injunction that enjoined enforcement of the voter-transportation law; both houses of the Michigan Legislature intervened as defendants and appealed.
The district court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the voter-transportation law; the Legislature sought (and the district court denied) an emergency stay pending appeal, then moved this court for a stay.
The Sixth Circuit majority granted the Legislature’s emergency stay, reasoning the Legislature has standing to appeal, FECA likely does not preempt the state law when read with FEC regulations, and the equities favor a stay before the upcoming election.
The law challenged dates to 1895 (amended later) and is framed as a prophylactic anti–"vote-hauling"/fraud measure; plaintiffs say its effect is to bar expenditures (transportation) that FECA governs.
Chief Judge Cole dissented: she argued the Legislature lacks Article III standing, FECA likely preempts the statute, and the majority improperly reaches merits while circumventing standing limits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiffs' Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to appeal	Legislature lacks Article III injury; AG is proper state defendant; intervenors cannot appeal if the original party does not	Legislature suffers institutional injury because the injunction disrupts its power to regulate elections and Michigan law authorizes the Legislature to defend statutes	Court: Legislature has standing to appeal (institutional injury + causation + redressability)
FECA preemption	FECA broadly preempts State law governing federal elections and treats providing transportation as a regulated expenditure; Michigan ban conflicts with federal scheme	FECA must be read with FEC regulations that carve out state fraud-prevention laws; Michigan law targets vote-hauling and is a traditional anti-fraud regulation not displaced by FECA	Court: Legislature likely to prevail on merits; statute likely not preempted when read with regulations and ejusdem generis principles
Equities / irreparable harm	Injunction protects voters’ access to paid transportation and avoids last-minute rule changes that could confuse voters	Without a stay the Legislature will irreparably lose its ability to regulate paid transportation for the upcoming election; enforcement and fraud prevention would be impaired	Court: Balance favors stay — Legislature’s harm is irreparable; plaintiffs’ harm is modest; public interest favors protecting election integrity
Public interest / timing (Purcell) & constitutional claims	Staying injunction harms voting access and may reintroduce an impermissible restriction on independent expenditures; last-minute changes risk voter confusion	Staying preserves state anti-fraud rules and avoids inability to enforce election-day protections; Purcell concerns not dispositive here	Court: Public interest weighs slightly for stay; Purcell considerations acknowledged but not dispositive; dissent warned of unresolved constitutional/preemption issues

Key Cases Cited

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing doctrine; injury-in-fact, causation, redressability requirements)
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (permitting a legislative body to defend a statute when the Executive will not; separation-of-powers/federalism considerations)
Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, 139 S. Ct. 1945 (standing on appeal and intervenor limits)
Tennessee ex rel. Tenn. Gen. Assembly v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 931 F.3d 499 (examining state law to determine whether a state legislature can speak for the state in litigation)
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (limits on legislative standing; ‘‘abstract dilution’’ doctrine)
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787 (legislative standing where a law directly interferes with a legislature’s constitutionally assigned powers)
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (standing must exist at all stages of litigation)
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (warning about last-minute changes to election rules)