McNeilly v. Land

Decision Date03 July 2012
Docket NumberNo. 10–2244.,10–2244.
Citation684 F.3d 611
PartiesGreg McNEILLY, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Terri Lynn LAND, Defendant–Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

ARGUED:Matthew G. Davis, Witte Law Offices, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant. Ann M. Sherman, Office of the Michigan Attorney General, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Matthew G. Davis, Witte Law Offices, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant. Ann M. Sherman, Office of the Michigan Attorney General, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee.

Before: MARTIN and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; STEEH, District Judge. *

OPINION

STEEH, District Judge.

PlaintiffAppellant Greg McNeilly appeals the district court's denial of his request for a preliminary injunction enjoining DefendantAppellee Terri Lynn Land, in her official capacity as Michigan Secretary of State, from enforcing the individual contribution limits for contributions to state House and Senate candidates as set forth in Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) § 169.252(1). Because the district court accurately found that the established factors in this case mitigate against a preliminary injunction, its decision is AFFIRMED.

I.

On June 28, 2010, McNeilly filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan challenging the constitutionality of MCL § 169.252(1), which sets limits on individual campaign contributions. MCL § 169.252(1) provides:

Except as provided in subsection (5) or (11) and subject to subsection (8), a person other than an independent committee or a political party committee shall not make contributions to a candidate committee of a candidate for elective office that, with respect to an election cycle, are more than the following:

* * *

(b) $1,000.00 for a candidate for state senator, or for a candidate for local elective office if the district from which he or she is seeking office has a population of more than 85,000 but 250,000 or less.

(c) $500.00 for a candidate for state representative, or for a candidate for local elective office if the district from which he or she is seeking office has a population of 85,000 or less.

The original act, 1976 PA 388, imposed limits of $250 per state House primary election, $250 per state House election, $450 per state Senate primary election, and $450 per state Senate general election.

The current statute regulates contributions per “election cycle,” rather than election. MCL § 169.211(2) provides: ‘Person’ means a business, individual, proprietorship, firm, partnership, joint venture, syndicate, business trust, labor organization, company, corporation, association, committee, or any other organization or group of persons acting jointly.” MCL § 169.252(9) provides criminal penalties of $1,000 and up to 90 days in jail for violations of the statute by an individual. MCL § 169.209(2) defines [i]ndependent expenditure” as “an expenditure by a person if the expenditure is not made at the direction of, or under the control of, another person and if the expenditure is not a contribution to a committee.”

McNeilly attests that he wished to make contributions to the candidate committees of individuals running for state House and state Senate in Michigan in 2010 in excess of the limits imposed by MCL § 169.252(1) for an individual. He attests that he wished to make such contributions for the purpose of helping candidates amass the resources necessary to mount effective challenges in their respective campaigns. He also attests that he feared prosecution for making contributions in excess of the limits in place.

In his action, McNeilly claims the contribution limits violate his rights of political association and political expression under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. He requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment. His injunctive relief claim seeks an injunction enjoining Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land from enforcing MCL § 169.252(1).

On the same day he filed the action, McNeilly filed a motion for preliminary injunction and sought expedited consideration. In his motion, McNeilly requested a preliminary injunction preventing Land from enforcing the contribution limits imposed by MCL § 169.252(1), under which individuals seeking to contribute to political campaigns are limited to $500 per state House candidate committee and $1,000 per state Senate candidate committee. The motion was fully briefed. The district court denied McNeilly's request for expedited consideration and set a hearing date. In the days before the hearing, both sides filed supplemental documents.

On August 30, 2010, the district court held a hearing on McNeilly's motion for preliminary injunction. At the hearing, McNeilly argued Michigan's contribution limits are unconstitutional under the framework established in Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230, 126 S.Ct. 2479, 165 L.Ed.2d 482 (2006) (plurality). McNeilly acknowledged a state interest in preventing genuine quid pro quo corruption but argued the limits are unconstitutional because: (1) they are not indexed to inflation; (2) they “fall below the Vermont limits, when looked at especially in terms of real dollars”; (3) “the volunteer services are also a drag on the ability of one to associate with a candidate of his choice” (which appears to be a reference to limits on money spent in connection with volunteer activities); and (4) “these factors combined to prohibit challengers from making viable challenges to incumbents.” With respect to irreparable harm, McNeilly argued that, although the August 3, 2010 primary had passed, even a momentary deprivation of a First Amendment right constitutes irreparable harm. With respect to the balancing of the harms, McNeilly acknowledged that if a preliminary injunction issued there would be a “gap” of time in which no contribution limits were in place. McNeilly argued it was “possible” the legislature would enact new limits before the November 2010 election.

At the hearing, Land argued a preliminary injunction would harm the public because it was still election season. Land noted the statute and its limits “have been in place for decades” yet McNeilly waited until “four and a half weeks from the May date for filing for candidacy” to file the action. Land emphasized the “balancing of harms” and pointed out the requested preliminary injunction would “leave the state with no limits whatsoever within just months of the general election.” Land argued contribution limits are important to avoid not only corruption but the appearance of corruption. Land also argued the public would “suffer both in terms of their turnout at the polls and in terms of an orderly administration of the election season here.” Land noted McNeilly had not shown that “any contribution has yet been made in any amount to a state representative or a senate candidate.” Land also argued the Michigan contribution limits are not unreasonably low, noting the limits in Randall were $200 and $300, respectively. Land argued the statute must be read as a whole and the court should consider the fact that individuals may make unlimited “coordinated independent expenditures” in favor of a candidate. The statute also allows for larger contributions from the parties than the statute at issue in Randall.

In rebuttal argument at the hearing, McNeilly disputed Land's interpretation of “coordinated independent expenditures” and argued that the statute is void for vagueness or the functional equivalent of prior restraint.

After argument from both sides, the court denied the motion on the record and entered an order reflecting its decision. The court noted that granting “preliminary injunctive relief is extraordinary” and analyzed the four factors considered in a preliminary injunction request. In weighing three of the preliminary injunction factors, the court recognized that there was no showing of irreparable harm to McNeilly while there would be significant harm to defendant and the public if a preliminary injunction issued. As to the final factor, likelihood of success, the court found the factor did not favor either side. The court noted it was a “very complex issue” and found Randall distinguishable for a number of reasons. The court stated “the only hard evidence in this case thus far is that the statutory limits are not indexed to inflation.” The court found this small showing did not lead to the conclusion that McNeilly has a strong likelihood of success on the merits. The court noted the absence of empirical evidence to determine the effect of Michigan's individual contribution limits on the power to mount a campaign. Thus, the court concluded that the factors weighed in defendant's favor and denied McNeilly's request for a preliminary injunction.

II.

A district court's denial of a request for preliminary injunction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Jones v. City of Monroe, 341 F.3d 474, 476 (6th Cir.2003). “The district court's determination will be disturbed only if the district court relied upon clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applied the governing law, or used an erroneous legal standard ... Under this standard, we must review the district court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” Id. (internal citations omitted). “Moreover, the standard of review that this court must apply to the district court's findings on a preliminary injunction motion is highly deferential.” Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 739 (6th Cir.2000).

III.

In evaluating a request for a preliminary injunction, a district court should consider: (1) the movant's likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will suffer irreparable injury without a preliminary injunction; (3) whether issuance of a preliminary injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by issuance of a preliminary injunction. American Imaging...

To continue reading

Request your trial
189 cases
  • Vitolo v. Guzman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • 19 Mayo 2021
    ...cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by granting the injunction. McNeilly v. Land , 684 F.3d 611, 615 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Am. Imaging Servs., Inc. v. Eagle-Picher Indus. , Inc ., 963 F.2d 855, 858 (6th Cir. 1992) ); Midwest Retailer Assoc......
  • Johnson v. Brown
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • 18 Octubre 2021
    ...rights. Thus, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that they are likely to suffer imminent irreparable injury. See, e.g., McNeilly v. Land , 684 F.3d 611, 621 (6th Cir. 2012) ("Because McNeilly does not have a likelihood of success on the merits, as discussed above, his argument that he is irreparab......
  • Critter Control, Inc. v. Young
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 8 Septiembre 2014
    ...the plaintiff has shown a strong or substantial likelihood or probability of success on the merits of the case. See McNeilly v. Land, 684 F.3d 611, 615 (6th Cir. 2012); Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d. 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2000); Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. CAFCOMP Systems, 119 F.3d 393, 40......
  • Daunt v. Benson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 25 Noviembre 2019
    ...quo)). "[T]hat is why the plaintiff bears the burden to justify relief, even in First Amendment cases." Id. (citing McNeilly v. Land , 684 F.3d 611, 615 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters , 415 U.S. 423, 441, 94 S.Ct. 1113, 39 L.Ed.2d 435 (1974) ). Further, a plai......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT