Detroit Unity Fund v. Gretchen Whitmer ( 2020 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 20a0514n.06
No. 20-1817
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
DETROIT UNITY FUND, et al., ) Sep 02, 2020
) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
Plaintiffs-Appellees, )
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE
) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
GRETCHEN WHITMER, et al., ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN
) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Defendants-Appellants. )
)
BEFORE: ROGERS, COOK, and DONALD, Circuit Judges
BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs-Appellees Detroit Unity Fund and Virgil Smith (“Plaintiffs”) seek to enjoin
Governor Gretchen Whitmer et al. (“Defendants”) from enforcing the filing deadline for local
ballot initiatives. Plaintiffs seek to place a recreational marijuana ordinance on the ballot.
Michigan state law sets a filing deadline by which Plaintiffs were required to file the requisite
number of signatures. That deadline was 5:00 P.M. on July 28, 2020. See Mich. Comp. Laws
§ 168.646a(2). Plaintiffs concede they have not collected sufficient signatures. Plaintiffs filed
their Complaint and Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary
Injunction at 3:12 and 3:37 P.M. on July 28, less than two hours before the deadline.
The district court held a hearing at which it denied injunctive relief from the bench, later
issuing a thorough order explaining its reasons. In that order, the district court first found that
Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by laches, considering the unreasonable delay on the part of
No. 20-1817, Detroit Unity Fund et al. v. Whitmer, et al.
Plaintiffs and the consequent prejudice to Defendants. The district court also found that Plaintiffs’
substantive claims were unlikely to succeed on the merits because under the applicable Anderson-
Burdick framework, the burden imposed upon Plaintiffs merited only intermediate scrutiny
because it was not a “severe” burden. This Court recently found a “severe burden” where the
applicable signature-gathering deadline fell within the stay-at-home order, see Esshaki v. Whitmer,
813 F. App’x 170, 171-72 (6th Cir. 2020), but here the burden was not severe because the
applicable stay-at-home orders ended two months before the signature-gathering deadline. In
applying an intermediate level of review and weighing the competing interests, the district court
found that the filing deadline serves an important government interest in easing the administrative
burden on election officials in finalizing and printing the ballots. Concluding that Plaintiffs failed
to show a likelihood of success on the merits, the district court denied injunctive relief.
After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we are
convinced that the district court did not err in denying injunctive relief. The district court’s opinion
carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised and clearly articulates the
reasons underlying its decision. Thus, issuance of a full written opinion by this Court would serve
no useful purpose, particularly where the circumstances merit expediency. Accordingly, for the
reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.
-2-