Joel Crookston v. Ruth Johnson, No. 16-2490 (6th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on October 28, 2016.
Download PDF
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 16a0299p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ JOEL CROOKSTON, Plaintiff-Appellee, > v. RUTH JOHNSON, Michigan Secretary of State, in her official capacity, Defendant-Appellant. No. 16-2490 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. No. 1:16-cv-01109—Janet T. Neff, District Judge. Decided and Filed: December 21, 2016 Before: COLE, Chief Judge, GUY and SUTTON, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ON LETTER BRIEF: Ann M. Sherman, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant. Stephen R. Klein, PILLAR OF LAW INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., Patrick M. Jaicomo, MILLER JOHNSON, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee. _________________ ORDER _________________ PER CURIAM. On October 24, 2016, the district court preliminarily enjoined the State of Michigan from enforcing its bans on ballot exposure and photography at the polls against voters taking “ballot selfies.” On October 28, this panel stayed the district court’s injunction. The presidential election has now come and gone, but the merits of the preliminary injunction are still before us. Meanwhile, the district court is proceeding to trial on the permanent injunction. 1 No. 16-2490 Crookston v. Johnson Page 2 Both parties agree that summary reversal of the preliminary injunction is appropriate in light of our stay and the merits proceedings in the district court. It would serve no purpose to set a briefing schedule and issue a full opinion on the injunction’s merits. We considered the parties’ arguments regarding the plaintiff’s likelihood of success when we issued the stay, and full briefing would be unlikely to alter our conclusions at this stage. If needed, this Court will revisit this case after trial, but there is no need to reconsider the same arguments on the same record. For the reasons provided in the stay order, we reverse the district court’s grant of the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT _________________________________ Deborah L. Hunt, Clerk
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
