Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Challenge to Michigan’s Alcohol Delivery Law

By Scott Coyle and Benjamin Glassman on Posted in Case Updates, Supreme Court

On Monday the Supreme Court addressed—or, perhaps more to the point, chose not to address—an issue close to the hearts of many in the midst of a pandemic: home delivery of fine wine and spirits.  The Court declined to review the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Lebamoff v. Whitmer, which upheld the State of Michigan’s alcohol delivery laws in the face of a dormant Commerce Clause challenge.

Like many states, Michigan employs a “three-tier system” for alcohol distribution.  State-licensed alcohol producers and manufacturers (first tier) sell their products to licensed wholesalers (second tier), who in turn distribute the product to licensed retailers (third tier).  Participants in each tier are heavily regulated by the State, which retains the authority to impose price controls, taxes, and other health-and-safety regulations.  By requiring all alcohol entering the State to pass through this three-tier system, Michigan ultimately controls the amount of alcohol sold within its borders.

In 2016 Michigan enacted a statute permitting licensed retailers (the third tier) to offer home delivery.  While consumers undoubtedly welcomed this development (particularly on those harsh winter weekends when they were facing—and losing to—the Ohio State Buckeyes), retailers in neighboring states apparently were not impressed.  An Indiana retailer, Lebamoff Enterprises, sued the State, arguing that the statute violated the dormant Commerce Clause by allowing in-state—but not out-of-state—retailers to deliver alcohol to Michigan residents.

The Sixth Circuit rejected Lebamoff’s argument this past April, holding that the statute was a valid exercise of the State’s authority to regulate the importation of alcohol under the Twenty-first Amendment. Continue Reading

New year comings and goings

By Lauren Kuley on Posted in News and Analysis

Happy New Year from everyone here at the Sixth Circuit Blog!  We’re kicking off 2021 with some exciting news.  Ben Beaton, my appellate practice co-chair who often graced these pages, was sworn in last month as a US District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky.  We will miss Judge Beaton and his contributions to SPB’s work.  But we couldn’t be happier for him, and all of WDKY, as he surely will make a very fine judge.  We’re also pleased to announce that Keith Bradley, an appellate and regulatory specialist based in Denver, will serve as co-chair and help continue to grow our national practice.  You can read about Keith’s deep experience in appellate and administrative law and his impressive background here and here.

All our best wishes for 2021.  Stay tuned as we cover the latest developments out of the Sixth Circuit during these unusual times.

Assessing the amount in controversy when seeking to vacate an arbitral award

By Benjamin Glassman on Posted in Recent Cases

Yesterday’s published decision in Hale v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC established the law of the circuit on a nifty issue of subject matter jurisdiction in the context of arbitration. Where a plaintiff from one state has initiated arbitration against a defendant from another state, seeking millions, but has then received an arbitral award of zero, does a federal court have diversity jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff’s motion under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a) to vacate the arbitral award? Yes, it does. In an opinion by Judge Donald for a panel that also included Chief Judge Cole and Judge Readler, the Sixth Circuit revisited its last published opinion germane to the issue (decided over 25 years ago!) and explained that its conclusion “was not that the amount of the arbitrator’s award should be considered when calculating the amount in controversy in this context, but that in making such determinations, it is necessary to look to the amount alleged to be in controversy in the complaint.”

Is Title IX’s deliberate-indifference standard a question of law for the court to decide? Yes—at least “in an appropriate case,” says the en banc Sixth Circuit.

By Luke Burton on Posted in En Banc Watch, Recent Cases

Continuing an active year for Title IX precedent, the Sixth Circuit issued an en banc decision in Foster v. University of Michigan, which adds further contour to the Circuit’s Title IX “deliberate indifference” jurisprudence. It also implicitly raises—but does not necessarily answer—important questions regarding the appropriate standard of review for such claims.

In Foster, a divided panel (Judges Clay, Moore, and Sutton, with the latter dissenting) had reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the University of Michigan, holding that the plaintiff had established a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the school was deliberately indifferent to the sexual harassment she suffered from a fellow student (the respondent). The original panel majority and dissenting opinions agreed that the plaintiff was subjected to sexual harassment and that the school had notice of that harassment. So, as is often the case, the only remaining question was whether the school’s response was “clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances” such that it amounted to “deliberate indifference” under Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629, 650 (1999). The panel originally concluded that questions of fact remained regarding whether Michigan’s response to the respondent’s harassment was actionable under Title IX, including, among others, whether Michigan had conceded that its response was inadequate yet failed to take any additional measures and whether the university adhered too long to its “no contact order” remedy in the face of mounting evidence that the respondent was likely to violate that order. 952 F.3d 765, 784–88 (6th Cir. 2020).  Judge Sutton dissented, and would have held that Michigan’s response was appropriate “proportionate escalation.” The dissenting opinion at the panel stage worried that the majority was “dilut[ing] deliberate indifference into mere reasonableness.” Id. at 791–95.

The Sixth Circuit took the case en banc and affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding, as a matter of law, that Michigan did not show deliberate indifference.  The en banc majority (Sutton, J.), echoing the Supreme Court in Davis, explained that the deliberate-indifference standard presents a “high bar” to imposing Title IX liability on a university and that, “[i]n an appropriate case, there is no reason why courts, on a motion to dismiss, for summary judgment, or for a directed verdict, could not identify a response as not [deliberately indifferent] as a matter of law.”  (Slip Op. at 7, 14–15.)  Plaintiff’s case, according the en banc majority, was such a case. Continue Reading

Sixth Circuit stays injunction in challenge to Kentucky public health measures that did not exempt religious schools from general prohibition on in-person instruction.

By Squire Patton Boggs on Posted in Recent Cases, Supreme Court

This post arrives thanks to Erica M. Van Heyde, a 2020 graduate of The Ohio State University Mortiz College of Law, who joins Squire Patton Boggs as an associate in 2021. 

Like most states, Kentucky is experiencing a surge in COVID-19 cases. Governor Andy Beshear has responded by implementing a number of public health measures aimed at quelling the spread of the virus. Among these was executive order 2020-969, which prohibited in-person instruction at all public and private schools in the Commonwealth. The order was quickly challenged by Danville Christian Academy, a Christian private school located near Lexington. The school, joined by Kentucky’s Attorney General, argued that enforcing the order against religious institutions violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

A district court in Frankfort, Kentucky granted a motion for preliminary injunction, restraining the Governor from enforcing the order against any private, religious school that otherwise adhered to Kentucky’s public health measures. The Governor (represented by his own counsel and adverse to the state’s Attorney General) immediately appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which on Sunday stayed the injunction via order.

In staying the injunction, the panel (Moore, Rogers, White, JJ.) focused on the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits of the constitutional challenge. The Free Exercise Clause, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that the states shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Laws that discriminate against religious practices are subject to strict scrutiny and usually invalidated. By contrast, neutral laws of general applicability that incidentally burden religious practices are usually valid. The court concluded that the executive order in question fell into the latter category. The court reasoned that Governor Beshear’s order “applies to all public and private elementary and secondary schools in the Commonwealth, religious or otherwise; it is therefore neutral and of general applicability and need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest.”

The court distinguished the present order from orders that were successfully challenged in recent Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent. Continue Reading

Tennessee election officials’ motion to stay injunction “too little, too late,” so first-time voters may continue to vote by mail.

By Squire Patton Boggs on Posted in Recent Cases

This post arrives thanks to Erica M. Van Heyde, a 2020 graduate of The Ohio State University Mortiz College of Law, who joins Squire Patton Boggs as an associate in 2021. 

Last week, in Memphis A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Hargett, the Sixth Circuit considered the application of the factors for a stay pending appeal of a district court’s injunction regarding the mechanics of the election in Tennessee, issuing a published decision that is the court’s latest contribution to the burgeoning case law about voting rights, COVID-19, and the role of the federal courts.

In Tennessee, as in many other states, the convergence of the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election is expected to result in a steep increase in absentee voting. In May of this year, one Tennessee voter and several voter outreach organizations brought suit against state elections officials to challenge the state’s statutory scheme governing absentee voting. The plaintiffs specifically sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of a law that prevents some first-time voters from voting absentee. A district court in Nashville granted that injunction early in September, holding that the restriction violated the constitutional rights of first-time voters.

Election officials did not appeal the injunction until October 5th, nearly a month after it was granted. Last week a panel of the Sixth Circuit (Moore, Gibbons, Readler, JJ.) denied the defendants’ motion to stay the injunction, relying principally on the non-merits factors for a stay, meaning that the absentee voting restriction will not be enforced against the approximately 128,000 first-time voters in Tennessee this election. Continue Reading

In staying injunction, the Sixth Circuit effectively upholds Ohio’s limitation of ballot drop boxes to one per county.

By Corey McGehee on Posted in Recent Cases

Ohioans have four ways to cast a ballot in this (currently underway) Presidential election: (1) vote in person on election day, (2) vote in person at some point in the four weeks leading up to election day, (3) mail in an absentee ballot; or (4) drop off an absentee ballot at a drop box.  Given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in Ohio and across the U.S., Ohio voters are reasonably anxious about casting their vote in-person—options one and two—as detailed in the A. Philip Randolph Institute of Ohio, et al. v. LaRose district court proceedings (Polster, J., coincidentally).  Election officials anticipate a record 2.4 million Ohioans will request absentee ballots for the November 3, 2020 election.  Ohio voters may accordingly be equally anxious about the U.S. Postal Service’s ability to handle such unprecedented volume of election mail (option three)—a looming challenge that Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose acknowledged in the district court he is but “cautiously optimistic” the Postal Service will be able to meet.  Consequently, the fourth option—dropping off an absentee ballot at a drop box—has emerged as the preferred method of voting for “a large number of Ohio voters.”  (Polster, J.)

Shortly before absentee voting was set to begin in Ohio, Secretary LaRose issued Directive 2020-16 which, among other things, limits drop box locations to one per county.  To be sure, the Secretary of State has overall control of elections in Ohio, and possesses the statutory authority to issue election directives.  But, ordinarily, the 88 bipartisan county boards of elections determine the location of absentee ballot drop boxes, consistent with their statutory authority to “control the local aspects of elections,” and duty to “fix and provide the places for registration and for holding primaries and elections,” as noted by Judge White in her dissenting opinion in the Sixth Circuit’s Friday evening decision on the matter.  “This makes sense,” she explains, as “county populations, geographic dimensions, and infrastructure vary considerably throughout the state.”  (highlighting Cuyahoga County’ 850,000 voters to Noble County’s fewer than 10,000.)

District Court Enjoins Directive 2020-16

Given the “unprecedented juxtaposition of the worst pandemic in a century coupled with reasonable concern and anxiety over the ability of the U.S. Postal Service to handle what will undoubtedly be the largest number of absentee voters in Ohio’s history,” (Polster, J.), a collection of non-partisan civil rights organizations and individual voters challenged Directive 2020-16 as an unconstitutional infringement on Ohioans’ right to vote.  Continue Reading

Sixth Circuit Practice Tip: You Can’t Renew a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Never Made in the First Place.

By Corey McGehee on Posted in Recent Cases

The bar exam, so the saying goes, is like fording a river that is a mile wide but only an inch deep.  Cliché though it may be, the analogy serves as a useful reminder that the exam tests candidates largely on settled, black-letter law rather than novel questions typical of law school exams.  Most readers, I assume, will have had at least one experience preparing for and taking the bar exam, and most, I further assume, will have at least one line of questioning forever burned into their brains, regardless of utility to later practice.  For me, that line of questioning is civil procedure, and more specifically, judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”).  Lest I be tempted to believe I latched onto this rule because I’m a litigator, the reality is I remember the rule because it’s so simple: if you fail to move for JMOL before the case is submitted to the jury, you can’t make a renewed JMOL motion after a verdict has been rendered.  Simple.  Settled.  And an inch-deep.

I was therefore surprised to learn that the Sixth Circuit had never expressly decided the question—i.e., whether a party can make a renewed motion for JMOL under FRCP 50(b) if it has not made a pre-verdict JMOL motion under FRCP 50(a).  In Hanover American Insurance Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Entertainment, the Sixth Circuit linked arms with its sister circuits and held, unequivocally (and to the great relief of bar review courses everywhere), “no.”

Unusual Procedural Posture

Tattooed Millionaire arises from insurance fraud for ostensible arson, burglary, and vandalism of the historic House of Blues music studio in Memphis, Tennessee.  Continue Reading

Opioid Update: Sixth Circuit reverses order certifying a negotiation class

By Benjamin Glassman on Posted in Case Updates, Recent Cases

The opioid MDL continues to generate significant decisions in the law of civil procedure. Arguably the most significant arrived last week in a much-anticipated ruling, when a divided panel issued a published opinion reversing the district court’s certification of a “negotiation class” in the case. Judge Clay wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge McKeague, with Judge Moore dissenting.

As this blog twice previewed last year, at issue in this appeal was the validity of an order certifying a class for the purpose of negotiating settlement. The theory was to facilitate settlement by fixing the size of the group with which defendants could negotiate. To accomplish that goal, the order included in the class every city and county in the country, unless a prospective class member opted out within sixty days of the order. Class members would know in advance the percentage of any eventual settlement allocated to them, but necessarily would not know the settlement amount. Thereafter, if a supermajority of six categories of voting class members agreed to a proposed settlement, that agreement would bind the entire negotiating class and would then be presented to the court for approval under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No defendant was required to negotiate with the class, and the bellweather trials were to continue. This novel procedure was the brainchild of “Professor Francis E. McGovern, a special master appointed to aid the district court in the MDL, in collaboration with Professor William B. Rubenstein.” (Tragically, Professor McGovern, a national expert in ADR and mass tort litigation, passed away unexpectedly earlier this year.)

The overwhelming majority of putative class members did not opt out after the certification order, but that overwhelming majority included six cities that objected to the validity of the order. Those six cities, together with certain opioid-distributor and retail-pharmacy defendants, sought and received permission to take an interlocutory appeal of the order under Rule 23(f).

Judge Clay’s majority opinion concluded that “the negotiation class ordered by the district court simply is not authorized by the structure, framework, or language of Rule 23.” Continue Reading

The Court of Appeals doesn’t know all the information about a case unless the parties teach it (even if everyone else in the case does).

By Benjamin Glassman on Posted in Uncategorized

When a panel of the Sixth Circuit denied rehearing in a criminal case last month, Judge Moore issued a separate opinion, joined by Judge White, that highlights an important point for appellate advocacy. That is, regardless of how common some knowledge may be to the litigants at the trial level, the judges on appeal know only what the parties teach them about it.

What prompted Judge Moore’s somewhat unusual opinion was a petition for panel rehearing in a direct criminal appeal. In its merits decision before the rehearing petition, the panel held that the district court had erred in calculating the defendant-appellant’s advisory sentencing guidelines range; but it also held that the error was harmless because the district judge had stated explicitly during the sentencing hearing that he “would have imposed the same sentence under § 3553(a)” even “[i]f the guideline[s] calculation is determined to have been wrong.” In seeking panel rehearing, the defendant-appellant brought to the court’s attention “that the district court’s statement is part of its standard sentencing colloquy, even in cases where the parties do not object to the Sentencing Guidelines calculation.” United States v. Montgomery, 969 F.3d 582 (6th Cir. 2020) (opinion of Moore, J.). That point might have made a difference; Judge Moore failed to see “why we should give any weight to boiler-plate language designed to thwart a deserved resentencing.” Id. at 582. Unfortunately for the defendant-appellant, however, because the she “failed to raise this argument in her initial briefing and has brought it to our attention only on petition for panel rehearing, … her argument came too late and is inappropriate for our consideration at this stage.” Id. Panel rehearing was denied.

All of this brought to my mind the reality that in most cases, there’s a significant amount of relevant knowledge that almost everyone involved at the trial level knows—and that the appellate judges do not, unless the parties teach them. Continue Reading

LexBlog