CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
CHAD THOMPSON; WILLIAM T. SCHMITT; DON KEENEY,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
RICHARD MICHAEL DEWINE, in his capacity as the Governor of Ohio; LANCE HIMES, in his official capacity as the Interim Director of the Ohio Department of Health; FRANK LAROSE, in his official capacity as Ohio Secretary of State,
Defendants-Appellants.
   No. 20-3526
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:20-cv-02129—Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., District Judge.
Decided and Filed: September 16, 2020
Before: SUTTON, McKEAGUE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

PER CURIAM. The COVID-19 pandemic has upended life in many ways. In response to the unfolding public health crisis, states across the country imposed various orders in hopes of containing the virus. Ohio, for its part, asked its citizens to stay at home and restricted the size of gatherings.

This case, which we’ve seen before, involves the intersection of COVID-19, the state’s responses to that pandemic, and some of Ohio’s conditions that must be met before a ballot initiative can get on the ballot for Election Day. See Thompson v. DeWine, 959 F.3d 804, 806 (6th Cir.) (per curiam), mot. to vacate stay denied, --- S. Ct. ----, No. 19A1054, 2020 WL 3456705 (2020).

Plaintiffs say that Ohio’s ballot initiative conditions are unconstitutional as applied during this pandemic and request that the federal courts relax them, at least for the time being. Plaintiffs’ challenge is a curious one. There is no question that Ohio’s ballot initiative conditions are, standing alone, constitutional, there is no question that Ohio is not responsible for COVID-19, and Plaintiffs are not challenging Ohio’s restrictions on public gatherings and the like, which Ohio imposed to address the pandemic—so we assume those are constitutional as well. And yet, Plaintiffs contend that when you put all of this together, in effect, two constitutional rights plus one outside catalyst make one constitutional wrong. The district court agreed and granted a preliminary injunction. We stayed that order because we disagreed. And now, because we still disagree, we reverse the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
NIKOS KIDIS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JEAN REID; JOHN MORAN,
Defendants-Appellants.
   No. 19-1673
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:16-cv-13070—Sean F. Cox, District Judge.
Argued: April 29, 2020
Decided and Filed: September 25, 2020
Before: BOGGS, GRIFFIN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. A jury found that Officer John Moran used excessive force in arresting Nikos Kidis, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The jury’s conclusions regarding harm and compensatory damages, however, were difficult to square with its conclusion on punitive damages. On the one hand, the jury found that Moran’s conduct did not injure Kidis, and accordingly awarded Kidis $1 in nominal compensatory damages. But on the other, the jury found Moran’s actions so unjustified as to warrant $200,000 in punitive damages. When measured against the jury’s harm and compensatory damage findings, the punitive damages award runs afoul of the due process principles articulated in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003). We accordingly reverse the punitive damages portion of the judgment, and remand that portion of the judgment to the district court with instructions to enter an order of remittitur reducing the punitive damages award to no more than $50,000. We affirm the remaining aspects of the judgment.