CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
DAVID BRYON BABCOCK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 19-1687
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:18-cv-00255—Gordon J. Quist, District Judge.
Argued: March 10, 2020
Decided and Filed: May 11, 2020
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; BOGGS and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

COLE, Chief Judge. This case asks us to decide whether a federal civil-service pension based on work as a National Guard dual-status technician qualifies as “a payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service” under the Social Security Act. We agree with the district court that it does not.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MELISSA BUCK, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

ST. VINCENT CATHOLIC CHARITIES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROBERT GORDON, et al.,
Defendants,

KRISTY DUMONT; DANA DUMONT,
Amicae Curiae-Appellants.
   No. 19-1959
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:19-cv-00286—Robert J. Jonker, District Judge.
Argued: March 12, 2020
Decided and Filed: May 11, 2020
Before: GRIFFIN, WHITE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. The State of Michigan finds itself in a tug-of-war between faith-based child placement agencies and same-sex couples who wish to foster or adopt children. In an earlier round of litigation, appellants Kristy and Dana Dumont claimed the State violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by allowing faith-based child placement agencies to refuse them service based on their sexual orientation. Michigan settled that suit by agreeing to enforce a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against faith-based child placement agencies. That settlement spawned this litigation. Plaintiff St. Vincent Catholic Charities claims the State violated its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by directing it to perform its duties in a manner that violates its sincerely held religious beliefs.

This appeal deals not with the merits of the underlying constitutional dispute, but rather with whether the district court erred as a matter of law in denying the Dumonts’ motion for intervention as of right or, in the alternative, whether it abused its discretion in denying their motion for permissive intervention. For the reasons explained below, we reverse the district court’s order regarding permissive intervention and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
THEODORE JOSEPH ROBERTS, RANDALL DANIEL, and SALLY O’BOYLE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
ROBERT D. NEACE, in his capacity as Boone County Attorney, ANDREW G. BESHEAR, in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, ERIC FRIEDLANDER, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 20-5465
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington.
No. 2:20-cv-00054—William O. Bertelsman, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: May 9, 2020
Before: SUTTON, McKEAGUE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
ORDER
_________________________

PER CURIAM. Three congregants of Maryville Baptist Church wish to attend in-person worship services this Sunday, May 10. By order of the Kentucky Governor, however, they may not attend “faith-based” “mass gatherings” through May 20. Claiming that this limitation on corporate worship violates the free-exercise protections of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the congregants seek emergency relief barring the Governor and other officials from enforcing the ban against them. The Attorney General of the Commonwealth supports their motion as amicus curiae. The Governor and other officials oppose the motion.

. . .

The plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction pending appeal is GRANTED. The Governor and the other defendants are enjoined, during the pendency of this appeal, from enforcing orders prohibiting in-person services at the Maryville Baptist Church if the Church, its ministers, and its congregants adhere to the public health requirements mandated for “life-sustaining” entities.