Joel Crookston v. Ruth Johnson

Filing

Per Curiam PUBLISHED ORDER filed : We reverse the district court s grant of the plaintiff s motion for a preliminary injunction. Decision for publication. R. Guy Cole , Jr., Chief Judge; Ralph B. Guy, Jr. and Jeffrey S. Sutton, Circuit Judge.

Case: 16-2490

Document: 22-2

Filed: 12/21/2016

Page: 1

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
File Name: 16a0299p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
_________________

JOEL CROOKSTON,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

┐
│
│

>

v.
RUTH JOHNSON, Michigan Secretary of State, in her
official capacity,
Defendant-Appellant.

│
│
│
│
│
│
┘

No. 16-2490

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:16-cv-01109—Janet T. Neff, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: December 21, 2016
Before: COLE, Chief Judge, GUY and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.
_________________
COUNSEL
ON LETTER BRIEF: Ann M. Sherman, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY
GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant. Stephen R. Klein, PILLAR OF LAW
INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., Patrick M. Jaicomo, MILLER JOHNSON, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, for Appellee.
_________________
ORDER
_________________
PER CURIAM. On October 24, 2016, the district court preliminarily enjoined the State
of Michigan from enforcing its bans on ballot exposure and photography at the polls against
voters taking “ballot selfies.” On October 28, this panel stayed the district court’s injunction.
The presidential election has now come and gone, but the merits of the preliminary injunction are
still before us. Meanwhile, the district court is proceeding to trial on the permanent injunction.

1

Case: 16-2490
No. 16-2490

Document: 22-2

Filed: 12/21/2016

Page: 2

Crookston v. Johnson

Page 2

Both parties agree that summary reversal of the preliminary injunction is appropriate in
light of our stay and the merits proceedings in the district court. It would serve no purpose to set
a briefing schedule and issue a full opinion on the injunction’s merits. We considered the
parties’ arguments regarding the plaintiff’s likelihood of success when we issued the stay, and
full briefing would be unlikely to alter our conclusions at this stage. If needed, this Court will
revisit this case after trial, but there is no need to reconsider the same arguments on the same
record.
For the reasons provided in the stay order, we reverse the district court’s grant of the
plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

_________________________________
Deborah L. Hunt, Clerk