Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Buck Stay Denial
Buck Stay Denial
Dear Counsel,
Sincerely yours,
Enclosure
Case: 19-2185 Document: 29-2 Filed: 11/19/2019 Page: 1 (2 of 4)
No. 19-2185
The Michigan State Defendants (“the State”) appeal the district court’s September 26, 2019
order granting a preliminary injunction to plaintiff St. Vincent Catholic Charities (“St. Vincent”).
The injunction prohibits the State from terminating, suspending, or failing to renew its contracts
for adoption and foster placement services with St. Vincent or taking any other action alleged to
interfere with St. Vincent’s free exercise of its religious beliefs. The State moves to stay the order
pending resolution of its appeal and asks for an emergency ruling on its motion. The district court
has denied a similar motion. Plaintiffs oppose a stay. Non-parties Kristy Dumont and Dana
Case: 19-2185 Document: 29-2 Filed: 11/19/2019 Page: 2 (3 of 4)
No. 19-2185
-2-
Dumont have tendered a response in support of a stay, which we accept solely for the purposes of
this motion.
We consider four factors in deciding whether to issue a stay: (1) whether the movant “has
made a strong showing that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits”; (2) whether it “will be
irreparably injured absent a stay”; (3) “whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the
other parties interested in the proceeding”; and (4) “where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder,
556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). “The first two
factors . . . are the most critical.” Id. The four factors “are not prerequisites that must be met, but
are interrelated considerations that must be balanced together.” Mich. Coal. of Radioactive
Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir. 1991); see Ohio State Conference
of N.A.A.C.P. v. Husted, 769 F.3d 385, 387 (6th Cir. 2014) (order).
We “begin by considering the likelihood that the district court’s preliminary injunction
order will be upheld on appeal.” Serv. Emps. Int’l Union Local 1 v. Husted, 698 F.3d 341, 343
(6th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). The State argues that the district
court made numerous factual and legal errors. But the facts are largely uncontested; the State
objects to the district court’s interpretation of those facts, which led to its conclusion that plaintiffs
had a likelihood of success on the merits. In the absence of a factual or legal error, “the district
judge’s weighing and balancing of the equities should be disturbed on appeal only in the rarest of
cases.” Preterm-Cleveland v. Himes, 940 F.3d 318, 321 (6th Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). The
district court’s findings support the conclusion that a preliminary injunction in this case would
merely preserve the status quo and ensure that St. Vincent may continue to operate as it has for the
past seventy years. See id. at 325. We conclude that the relevant factors weigh in favor of denying
a stay.
Case: 19-2185 Document: 29-2 Filed: 11/19/2019 Page: 3 (4 of 4)
No. 19-2185
-3-