CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
CHRISTOPHER GRAVELINE; WILLARD H. JOHNSON; MICHAEL LEIBSON; KELLIE K. DEMING,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
JOCELYN BENSON, Secretary of State of Michigan; JONATHAN BRATER, Director of Michigan Bureau of Elections, in their official capacities,
Defendants-Appellants,

DANA NESSEL, Attorney General of Michigan,
Intervenor-Appellant.
   No. 20-1337
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:18-cv-12354—Victoria A. Roberts, District Judge.
Argued: December 16, 2020
Decided and Filed: March 29, 2021
Before: MOORE, GILMAN, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. This is the parties’ second time before our court in regard to the constitutionality of a constellation of Michigan laws that, in combination, govern an independent candidate’s ability to be placed on the ballot for statewide office. Plaintiff-Appellee Christopher Graveline attempted to get his name on Michigan’s November 2018 general election ballot as an independent, non-partisan candidate for attorney general. The other plaintiffs are registered Michigan voters who supported Graveline’s candidacy and who intended to vote for him. Together, they challenge the Michigan laws that set forth the requirements for Graveline’s name to appear on the general election ballot. Plaintiffs contend that these laws deprive them of their rights to freedom of speech and association, equal protection, and due process under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Previously, this court denied Defendants-Appellants’ motion for an emergency stay pending their appeal of the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiffs. The district court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of the provisions on the grounds that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that the provisions violated their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Subsequently, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, denied Defendants’ motion, issued a permanent injunction, and implemented an interim requirement allowing independent candidates to qualify for statewide offices by submitting a qualifying petition with 12,000 signatures. Defendants then filed a motion to amend the district court’s findings to clarify the contours of the interim signature requirement, which the district court denied. Defendants now appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the denial of their motion to amend.

Applying the analytical framework set forth by the Supreme Court in Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983), and in Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992), we hold that the challenged provisions, applied in combination, impose a severe burden on the constitutional rights of independent candidates and their potential voter-supporters. Because the provisions are not narrowly drawn to advance compelling state interests, Michigan’s statutory scheme for qualifying independent candidates to be placed on the ballot violates the Constitution. Due to the impermissible infringement on Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, we also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in crafting its remedy. Thus, we AFFIRM the rulings of the district court.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BRENT MICHAEL EDINGTON,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 20-1420
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Marquette.
No. 2:19-cr-00008-1—Robert J. Jonker, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: March 29, 2021
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; SILER and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SILER, Circuit Judge. The government appeals the district court’s dismissal of a felony information charging Brent Edington with conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1014. The district court granted Edington’s motion to dismiss based on the idea that a conspiracy offense under 18 U.S.C. § 371 necessarily falls under the five-year statute of limitations in 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a). The government argued that the district court’s decision is at odds with the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 3293(1) and applicable case law. The plain language of § 3293(1) expressly provides a 10-year limitations period for certain offenses including “a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate . . . section . . . 1014.” 18 U.S.C. § 3293(1). Therefore, we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of the information based on the statute of limitations and REMAND the case for further proceedings.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
TIGER LILY, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiff-Appellees,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
   No. 21-5256
On Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and Immediate Administrative Stay.
United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis;
No. 2:20-cv-02692—Mark S. Norris Sr., District Judge.
Decided and Filed: March 29, 2021
Before: NORRIS, THAPAR, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
ORDER
_________________________

Last September, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ordered a nationwide moratorium on residential evictions. As justification for its involvement in landlord-tenant relations, the CDC cited a provision of the Public Health Service Act authorizing it to sanitize property exposed to contagion. Plaintiffs in this case—all of whom own or manage residential rental properties—challenged the CDC’s order and its subsequent extension. The district court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. The government now moves to stay the district court’s order pending appeal. We deny its motion.