Case: Priorities USA v. Nessel
4:19-cv-13341 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Filed Date: Nov. 12, 2019
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This lawsuit was filed on November 12, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiff, a left-wing advocacy group called Priorities USA, sued Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in her official capacity. They were represented by private counsel. The group claimed that two Michigan laws, the "Voter Transportation Ban" and the "Absentee Ballot Organizing Ban," violated the U.S. Constitution. The Voter Transportation Ban prohibited the hiring of vehicles to bring voters to an election, unless that voter is physically unable to walk. The Absentee Ballot Organizing Ban created strict limits on the handling of absentee ballots by third parties. The lawsuit argues that these provisions were in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States. The provisions violated the First Amendment, the complaint argued, in that they created an undue burden to vote and they violated the organization's rights to free speech and association. The Fourteenth Amendment charge asserted that the provisions violated the Equal Protection Clause because they only exempted one type of disability -- people unable to walk -- while leaving out many other people who cannot transport themselves to the polls, including people with visual and other physical impairments. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, along with attorney's fees and costs.
The case was assigned to District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith and Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen.
A month later, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on several grounds. First, they argued that the plaintiff lacked standing, as they had not been injured and could not sue as a representative. The motion also argued that the plaintiff did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted with regards to both the Voter Transportation Ban and to the Absentee Ballot Organizing Ban. The defendants argued that the laws only minimally burdened rights to vote and rights to free speech, and were supported by important interests. Judge Goldsmith issued an order on December 23 suggesting that the plaintiffs amend their complaint. In response, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 27, 2020.
The new amended complaint added two new plaintiffs. The first, Rise, Inc. was a student-run voter mobilization group operating in Michigan and California. The second, Detroit/Downriver Chapter of the A. Philip Randolph Institute (DAPRI) was a self-described "senior constituency group" of the AFL-CIO. The amended complaint also made changes to the underlying complaints. The first count now alleged that the Absentee Ballot Organizing Ban violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by being unconstitutionally vague. The amended complaint retained the arguments that the Absentee Ballot Organizing Ban was in violation of free speech and free association rights, and also that it created an undue burden regarding the right to vote. They also inserted a new argument, claiming that the state laws conflicted with Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act (which holds that voters can choose from whom they receive assistance in voting if they are blind, disabled, or unable to read/write). The plaintiffs put forth many of the same claims with regards to the Voter Transportation Ban in the amended complaint, claiming that it was unconstitutionally vague, violated free speech and association rights, created an undue burden to the right to vote, and was superseded by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1973. Regulations pursuant to that act allow corporations and labor organizations to transport voters to and from the polls. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorney's fees and costs.
At the same time, the plaintiffs began a separate lawsuit with a complaint identical to the amended complaint under this docket. They claimed to have done this "out of an abundance of caution" to make sure that the new arguments regarding standing were properly considered. They immediately moved to consolidate the new case with this one, and the new case was dismissed on February 14, 2020.
On January 28, 2020, a day after the amended complaint was filed, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction. Here, the plaintiffs argued that their claims were meritorious, that they would suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief was not granted, that a preliminary injunction would not cause substantial harm to others, and that the injunction was in the public interest.
On the last day of January, the case was reassigned to District Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis.
On February 10, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing the alterations made to the plaintiffs' complaint still did not grant them standing, because they had not shown that they were actually planning on participating in any of the prohibited behavior. They also argued that the federal statute regarding the Voting Rights Act and the Absentee Ballot Organizing Ban did not conflict, because the latter only prohibits third parties from actively requesting to take a voter's absentee ballot, whereas the Voting Rights Act ensures the voter's ability to ask for assistance in voting. Similarly, they argued that the Voter Transportation Ban did not conflict with the federal regulations, because the Voter Transportation Ban only forbade hiring someone for the purpose of taking the voter to the poll, but did not prohibit the plaintiffs from taking voters to the polls out of their own will.
A little over a week later, the defendants then filed a brief in opposition to the motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction. The brief more or less rehashed the same arguments they made in the motion to dismiss, adding that the plaintiffs would not face irreparable injury (but that the state would) and that an injunction would not be in the public interest.
Over the next few months, several other organizations submitted motions to intervene, including the Michigan Republican Party, the Republican National Committee, the Michigan House of Representatives, and the Michigan Senate. So on May 8, 2020, the court held a hearing regarding those parties' motions to intervene as well as the motion to dismiss. Two weeks later, the court issued an granting the parties' motions to intervene and granting in part and denying in part the defendant's motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Counts III and VII of the amended complaints, those being the allegations that the Absentee Ballot Organizing Ban and the Voter Transportation Ban constituted an undue burden to the right to vote. 2020 WL 2615766.
On June 1, the intervenors (the Michigan Republican Party and the Republican National Committee collectively and the Michigan House of Representatives and the Michigan Senate collectively) submitted similar responses to the amended complaint, which denied all of the allegations apart from the already dismissed counts, and asked that the court dismiss the case. They also submitted lists of affirmative defenses.
Two days later the defendant submitted a response to the amended complaint, which was more or less the same as what the intervenors had submitted.
Over the next few weeks, the intervenors responded to the motion for preliminary and permanent injunctions. The plaintiffs then filed a reply to the responses, and Judge Davis then scheduled a hearing for July 14 to listen to arguments regarding the proposed preliminary and permanent injunctions.
On September 17, 2020, the court issued an order granting the injunction with respect to the Voter Transportation Ban, because it found the ban to be preempted by federal law. 487 F. Supp. 3d 599. But the court denied the injunction as to the Absentee Ballot Organizing Ban, finding that the defendants had demonstrated that their interest in preventing fraud and abuse in the absentee ballot application process and maintaining public confidence in the absentee voting process were sufficiently important interests and were substantially related to the regulations set forth in the Absentee Ballot Organizing Ban. A week later, on September 24, 2020, the defendants appealed the order and requested a stay pending the appeal. The court denied the motion to stay on October 6, 2020, finding that a stay was not in the public’s best interest.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial, granting the motion to stay on October 21, 2020. 978 F.3d 976 (2020). The court found that the harm to the legislature without a stay would be irreparable: the November 3, 2020, election would only take place once, and the legislature would lose its ability to regulate paid voter transportation for that election. The harm to the voter-advocacy organizations appeared to be modest, as the court concluded there were other ways, without violating Michigan’s statute, to take voters to the polls. Several months later, on July 20, 2021, the Sixth Circuit issued another order with respect to the injunction, reversing the district court’s decision to enjoin the Transportation Ban. 860 Fed.Appx. 419. The court found that the defendants were likely to succeed on the merits, and the plaintiffs faced no harm now that the 2020 election had passed.
Litigation continued, and the parties began discovery. On September 24, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a judgment on the pleadings. Before the court could reach a decision on that motion, on March 21, 2022, both parties submitted motions for summary judgment. Judge Stephanie Dawkins, the presiding district court judge, was nominated to serve on the Sixth Circuit and the case was reassigned to Judge Stephen J. Murphy.
On September 15, 2022, the court issued an order granting the defendants’ motion for a judgment on the pleadings. The court found that the plaintiffs’ conduct related to the Absentee Ballot Organizing Ban lacked First Amendment protections, and even if the protections applied, both the Organizing Ban and the Transportation Ban satisfied the Anderson-Burdick framework for analyzing these challenges. No claims remained following this order, and any pending motions were rendered moot. On October 17, 2022, the court granted an extension of time for motions for attorneys’ fees.
Summary Authors
Jack Hibbard (7/28/2020)
Simran Takhar (4/15/2023)
Related Cases
Priorities USA v. Nessel, Eastern District of Michigan (2020)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16458002/parties/priorities-usa-v-nessel/
Davis, Stephanie Dawkins (Michigan)
Almon-Griffin, Reina (Michigan)
Arora, Nitika (Michigan)
Beane, Amanda J. (Washington)
Bryant, Christopher James (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16458002/priorities-usa-v-nessel/
Last updated March 26, 2025, 9:17 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 12, 2019
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Three organizations: 1) Priorities USA; 2) Rise, Inc.; 3) Detroit/Downriver A. Philip Randolph Institute
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Michigan 4:19-cv-13341
Eastern District of Michigan 4:20-cv-10211
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Voting:
Voting: Physical/Effective Access
Case Summary of Priorities USA v. Nessel, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/17643/ (last updated 4/15/2023).