Priorities USA v. Dana Nessel
20-1940
| 6th Cir. | Jul 20, 2021Background
- Michigan statute banned payment of transportation ("vote-hauling") to the polls; Priorities USA and allied nonprofits sued, seeking a preliminary injunction as a challenge under the First Amendment and related election-law doctrines.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the statute; the Michigan Legislature (intervenor) appealed because the state Attorney General did not seek an appeal.
- An emergency motions panel of this Court granted a stay of the district court’s injunction in October 2020 pending appeal; the merits briefing and consolidation with appeals by the RNC and Michigan Republican Party followed.
- The merits panel held the Legislature has appellate standing when the Attorney General declines to appeal, found the Legislature likely to succeed on the merits, and concluded the remaining injunction factors (state irreparable injury and public interest) favored reversal.
- The court reversed the district court’s preliminary injunction and remanded; Judge Cole dissented, arguing the emergency stay decision should not bind the merits panel, that the Legislature lacks standing under Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent, and that the majority errs in its injunction analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Michigan Legislature has appellate standing to defend the statute when the Attorney General declines emergency relief | Legislature lacks cognizable injury; intervenor cannot represent the State on appeal | Legislature is aggrieved and may appeal/defend when AG declines emergency relief | Majority: Legislature has standing to appeal here; binding precedent supports that posture |
| Whether the panel is bound by its earlier published emergency-stay order (law-of-the-circuit vs law-of-the-case) | Emergency stay was interlocutory and procedural; not binding on merits panel | Earlier published panel opinion is binding on later panels under 6th Cir. R. 32.1(b) | Majority: the published emergency order binds the court; dissent: motions-panel stays are not binding in the same case and may be revisited |
| Likelihood of success on the merits of the First Amendment/Anderson–Burdick challenge to the vote-hauling ban | Plaintiffs: statute imposes unconstitutional burden on political speech/assistance and should be enjoined | State: burden is not severe; law is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory measure to prevent potential fraud | Majority: Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed; statute likely survives Anderson–Burdick as a reasonable regulation protecting voting integrity |
| Balance of preliminary-injunction factors (irreparable harm to parties and public interest) | Plaintiffs: they suffer First Amendment and organizational harms; public interest favors enforcement of ballot access | State: an injunction inflicts irreparable sovereign injury and public interest supports enforcement of duly enacted election law | Majority: irreparable harm and public interest favor the State; injunction was an abuse of discretion and must be reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Priorities USA v. Nessel, 978 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2020) (earlier panel decision finding Legislature likely to prevail and granting emergency relief)
- Speech First, Inc. v. Schlissel, 939 F.3d 756 (6th Cir. 2019) (articulating preliminary-injunction factors and standards of review)
- A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Husted, 907 F.3d 913 (6th Cir. 2018) (standards for stay/panel review of interlocutory relief)
- Schmitt v. LaRose, 933 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2019) (applying the Anderson–Burdick framework to election-law challenges)
- Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted, 834 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2016) (noting heavy burden when plaintiffs seek relief invalidating a statute in all applications)
- Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (recognizing state interest in preventing voter fraud and limits on burdens that justify regulations)
- Libertarian Party of Ky. v. Grimes, 835 F.3d 570 (6th Cir. 2016) (discussing severe vs. lesser burdens on voting rights)
- Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301 (2012) (Roberts, C.J., in chambers) (state suffers irreparable injury when courts enjoin enforcement of duly enacted statutes)
- Va. House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, 139 S. Ct. 1945 (2019) (limits on legislative standing to appeal on behalf of the State)