Case 1:19-cv-00286-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 92 filed 02/27/20 PageID.
3027 Page 1 of 4 (1 of 4)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540
Deborah S. Hunt POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE Tel. (513) 564-7000
Clerk CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 www.ca6.uscourts.gov
Filed: February 27, 2020
Mr. Garrard Russ Beeney
Mr. William Bloomfield
Ms. Leila Rashida Siddiky
Catholic Diocese of Lansing
Sullivan & Cromwell
228 N. Walnut Street
125 Broad Street
Lansing, MI 48933
New York, NY 10004
Mr. Jacob Coate
Ms. Toni L. Harris
Mr. William Haun
Ms. Precious Snyott Boone
Mr. Nicholas Robert Reaves
Ms. Elizabeth Briggs
Mr. Mark Rienzi
Mr. Anthony Joseph Sukkar
Ms. Lori Halstead Windham
Office of the Attorney General
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
P.O. Box 30758
1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Suite 700
Lansing, MI 48917
Washington, DC 20036
Ms. Leslie Jill Cooper
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Re: Case No. 19-2185, Melissa Buck, et al v. Robert Gordon, et al
Originating Case No. : 1:19-cv-00286
Dear Counsel:
The Court issued the enclosed Order today in this case.
Sincerely yours,
s/Robin L. Johnson
Case Manager
Direct Dial No. 513-564-7039
cc: Mr. Thomas Dorwin
Enclosure
No mandate to issue
Case 1:19-cv-00286-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 92 filed 02/27/20 PageID.3028 Page 2 of 4 (2 of 4)
No. 19-2185
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA BUCK, et al., ) ),/('
)HE
) '(%25$+6+817&OHUN
Plaintiffs-Appellees, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
ROBERT GORDON, in his official capacity as )
Director of the Michigan Department of Health and )
Human Services, et al., )
)
Defendants-Appellants, )
)
ALEX M. AZAR, II, in his official capacity as the )
Secretary of the Untied States Department of Health )
and Human Services, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
Before: NORRIS, SUTTON, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.
Robert Gordon, Joo Yeun Chang, and Dana Nessel—in their official capacities as Director
of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, the Executive Director of the
Michigan Children’s Services Agency, and the Attorney General of Michigan—(“the State”)
appeal an interlocutory order granting a preliminary injunction to Plaintiff St. Vincent Catholic
Charities that prohibits the State from terminating, suspending, or failing to renew its contracts for
child placement services or otherwise taking any action interfering with its free exercise of its
religious beliefs. Non-parties Kristy and Dana Dumont move to intervene. The State did not
respond. But St. Vincent, along with plaintiffs Melissa Buck, Chad Buck, and Shamber Flore
Case 1:19-cv-00286-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 92 filed 02/27/20 PageID.3029 Page 3 of 4 (3 of 4)
No. 19-2185
-2-
(collectively, “St. Vincent”), suggest staying the Dumonts’ request pending the outcome of the
Dumonts’ related appeal and, alternatively, oppose intervention. The Dumonts reply. The State
moves to voluntarily dismiss the appeal without costs assigned to either party. St. Vincent opposes
dismissal. The State replies.
Courts “have broad discretion to grant voluntary motions to dismiss.” Am. Auto. Mfrs. v.
Comm’r, Mass. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 31 F.3d 18, 22 (1st Cir. 1994). We generally grant motions
to voluntarily dismiss, see Twp. of Benton v. Cty. of Berrien)Gí WK&LU
provided that circumstances do not dictate otherwise. We will deny voluntary dismissal if it is
sought to evade appellate review. See Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 168 (2d Cir. 2004).
We will deny voluntary dismissal if a party is trying to avoid having a particular panel decide the
merits of the appeal. In re Nexium Antitrust Litig., 778 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 2015). We also eschew
dismissal if we have invested substantial time in the case and a decision on the merits is imminent
or dismissal will needlessly delay consideration by the court. See id. We may deny voluntary
dismissal if lower courts would benefit from our immediate consideration of the issue. Cf.
Khouzam, 361 F.3d at 168 (denying dismissal after the court expressed doubts as to the movant’s
position during oral argument and noted that the case involved “an issue of public importance.”).
The circumstances here support dismissal. The State appealed the grant of a preliminary
injunction; thus, even if we consider the merits of the appeal, it will not end the litigation. See Am.
Auto Mfrs., 31 F.3d at 23 (citation omitted) (granting voluntary dismissal of a preliminary
injunction appeal because dismissal “w[ould] not shelter the . . . claims from scrutiny,” but instead
“w[ould] simply . . . accept[] [appellant’s] decision to let those claims be finally adjudicated before
bringing them to this court.”). Religious freedom is indisputably of public importance. But,
because a stay of the injunction has been denied by both the district court and our court, it will
remain in effect pending disposition of the matter. Thus, St. Vincent will remain protected if the
district court grants the State’s request to certify a question to the Michigan Supreme Court,
Case 1:19-cv-00286-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 92 filed 02/27/20 PageID.3030 Page 4 of 4 (4 of 4)
No. 19-2185
-3-
causing a delay. The appeal has not been briefed, oral argument has not been conducted, and a
decision is not imminent. Although neither the district court nor this court’s unpublished orders
denying a stay are binding, both signal to other courts that St. Vincent’s position has a likelihood
of success on appeal. There are similar cases pending, but they, too, are all in their infancy. The
Dumonts do have an outstanding motion to intervene. But they did not oppose dismissal. If they
prevail in their related appeal challenging the denial of intervention below, they will be permitted
to intervene below. And, regardless, they are participating below as amici.
The State suggests that costs should not be assigned to either party. Although St. Vincent
notes that it has already expended costs on appeal and takes issue with the State’s litigation
practice, it does not suggest alternative terms.
The motion to voluntarily dismiss is GRANTED. The motion to intervene is DENIED
AS MOOT.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk
