Source: http://openjurist.org/103/f3d/1240
Timestamp: 2015-04-21 05:30:04
Document Index: 630292032

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 169', '§ 169', '§ 169', '§ 169', '§ 169', '§ 169', '§ 169', '§ 1291', '§ 169', '§ 169', '§ 1292', '§ 169', '§ 1901']

103 F3d 1240 Michigan State v. Miller J | OpenJurist
103 F. 3d 1240 - Michigan State v. Miller J	Home103 f3d 1240 michigan state v. miller j
103 F3d 1240 Michigan State v. Miller J 103 F.3d 1240
154 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2073, 65 USLW 2449,36 Fed.R.Serv.3d 397
MICHIGAN STATE AFL-CIO, a voluntary, unincorporated laborassociation; International Union, United Automobile,Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW),a voluntary, unincorporated labor association; MetropolitanDetroit AFL-CIO; Seafarers International Union of NorthAmerica, a voluntary, unincorporated labor association;Franklin D. Garrison; Edgar A. Scribner, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.Candice MILLER, Secretary of State (95-1858), Defendant-Appellant,Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Defendant,Michigan Chamber of Commerce (95-1397), Proposed Intervenor-Appellant.
Nos. 95-1397, 95-1858.
Argued May 17, 1996.Decided Jan. 7, 1997.Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied in No.95-1858 March 19, 1997.*
Andrew Nickelhoff (argued), Theodore Sachs (briefed), Sachs, Nunn, Kates, Kadushin, O'Hare, Helveston & Waldman, Detroit, MI, for Michigan State AFL-CIO in both cases.
Theodore Sachs (briefed), Sachs, Nunn, Kates, Kadushin, O'Hare, Helveston & Waldman, Detroit, MI, for International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Metropolitan Detroit AFL-CIO, Seafarer's International Union of North America, Franklin D. Garrison, Edgar A. Scribner in both cases.
John D. Pirich (argued and briefed), John S. Kane, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn, Lansing, MI, for Michigan Chamber of Commerce in No. 95-1397.
Richard P. Gartner, Asst. Attorney Gen. (argued and briefed), Office of the Attorney General of Michigan, Lansing, MI, for Candice Miller in No. 95-1858.
John P. Pirich (argued and briefed), John S. Kane, Honigan, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn, Lansing, MI, for Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Amicus Curiae in No. 95-1858.
Thomas A. Baird, Okemos, MI, Kathleen Corkin Boyle, White, Przybylowicz, Schneider & Baird, Okemos, MI, for Michigan Education Association, Amicus Curiae in No. 95-1858.
NORRIS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WELLFORD, J., joined. DAUGHTREY, J. (pp. 1253-56), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.
In this consolidated appeal, the Michigan secretary of state challenges the district court's order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 169.255(6) (West 1996), a section of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act requiring labor unions to obtain affirmative consent at least once per year from members utilizing an automatic payroll deduction to make contributions to their union for political purposes. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce appeals the district court's denial of its motion to intervene, either permissively or as of right, as a defendant in order to argue for the constitutionality of § 169.255(6) and of the other statutory provisions contested by plaintiffs. We reverse on both grounds.
Throughout the latter half of the 1980s, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce (the "Chamber"), a non-profit Michigan corporation whose membership comprises more than six thousand Michigan corporations, litigated the question of whether the Michigan Campaign Finance Act then in effect unfairly discriminated against corporations in favor of labor organizations. The Chamber contended that allowing labor unions, their traditional political adversaries, to make political contributions directly from their treasuries, while at the same time restricting corporate contributions to monies earmarked for statutorily mandated "separate segregated funds," substantially weakened the political influence of corporations vis-a-vis labor unions. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting corporations, but not labor unions, from making political expenditures from their general treasuries does not violate the Constitution. See Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 660-66, 110 S.Ct. 1391, 1397-1401, 108 L.Ed.2d 652 (1990).
The Chamber then shifted its focus from litigation to legislation, seeking to have the statutory restrictions on corporate political expenditures applied to unions as well. With the Chamber's support, Michigan's legislature in May of 1994 enacted Public Act 117, amending its Campaign Finance Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 169.201-.282 (West 1996). See 1994 Mich. Pub. Acts 117.
On February 14, 1995, plaintiffs, four labor unions and two union presidents, filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as to four provisions of the 1994 amendments. Plaintiffs contested sections establishing that (1) contributions by all branches, subsidiaries, and local units of a corporation or labor union would be aggregated for purposes of the contribution limit, see § 169.252(9); (2) labor unions would be subject to the proscription, already applicable to corporations, on making contributions from general funds, see § 169.254(1); (3) labor unions would be permitted to solicit donations to their separate segregated fund from only those individuals and entities listed in the statute, see § 169.255(4); and (4) corporations and labor unions would be required to obtain affirmative consent at least once per year from members making contributions to a separate segregated fund by means of an automatic payroll deduction, see § 169.255(6). On February 28, 1995, two weeks after the filing of the complaint and prior to any hearings in the case, the Chamber filed a motion to intervene. Defendants did not oppose intervention.
On March 10, 1995, the district court issued a short order denying the Chamber intervenor status. After quoting the language of Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a), the order continued as follows: "It is the Court's opinion that the Michigan Chamber of Commerce does not fulfill the necessary requirements for intervention as of right. As to permissive intervention, the court chooses not to exercise its discretion and allow the applicant to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)." The district court then indicated that it would permit the Chamber to participate as an amicus curiae. The Chamber filed a timely notice of appeal from this order, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994) and the collateral order doctrine. Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action, 480 U.S. 370, 377, 107 S.Ct. 1177, 1182-83, 94 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949); Purnell v. City of Akron, 925 F.2d 941, 944 & n. 2 (6th Cir.1991).
Also on March 10, 1995, the district court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The Chamber was allowed to present oral argument as an amicus curiae. On March 31, 1995, the day before the 1994 amendments were to become effective, the district court issued an opinion purporting to deny injunctive relief as to § 169.254(1) and to enjoin preliminarily §§ 169.252(9), 169.255(4), and 169.255(6). The district court entered an order on July 19, 1995, formally granting in part and denying in part the preliminary injunction in accordance with its earlier opinion.
The Michigan Secretary of State filed a timely notice of appeal, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (1994). The Secretary of State's notice of appeal, as well as the subsequent briefs and oral argument to this court, are limited to challenging the district court's preliminary injunction with respect to § 169.255(6). The Michigan Attorney General has not appealed any aspect of the proceedings before the district court.
After the decisions below and the filing of appellate briefs, Michigan again amended its Campaign Finance Act. See 1995 Mich. Pub. Acts 264. Public Act 264, which went into effect on March 28, 1996, did not materially change any of the statutory language relevant to this case, although it did renumber two of the four provisions at issue. For the sake of clarity, any citations or quotations of the Campaign Finance Act in this opinion refer to the current version, which incorporates the amendments from Public Act 264.II. INTERVENTION
We first address the district court's denial of intervenor status to the Chamber. "[A] lawsuit often is not merely a private fight and will have implications on those not named as parties." 7C Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1901 (1986). At stake is more than just the opportunity to present argument to the district court, an interest that can be accommodated by amicus participation. What the Chamber also desires is the ability to seek appellate review in the event that the district court ultimately determines that one or more of the 1994 amendments are unconstitutional and the original defendants fail to appeal that ruling.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an outsider may intervene as "of right":
Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a). This court has interpreted Rule 24(a) as establishing four elements, each of which must be satisfied before intervention as of right will be granted: (1) timeliness of the application to intervene, (2) the applicant's substantial legal interest in the case, (3) impairment of the applicant's ability to protect that interest in the absence of intervention, and (4) inadequate representation of that interest by parties already before the court. Cuyahoga Valley Ry. Co. v. Tracy, 6 F.3d 389, 395 (6th Cir.1993). We review a district court's determination as to timeliness for an abuse of discretion, and the remaining three elements are examined de novo. Id.
While the district court made no finding concerning the timeliness of the Chamber's application to intervene, it appears that timeliness is not a problem here. The intervention motion was filed just two weeks after the complaint, and the case was obviously in its initial stage. Plaintiffs themselves do not argue that the motion was late. We consider the Chamber's motion timely as a matter of law.
2. Substantial Legal Interest
The focus of the parties' arguments concerning intervention was, appropriately, on the question of whether the Chamber has a legal interest in this case that is substantial enough to warrant intervention as of right. Plaintiffs characterize the Chamber's interest as remote, consisting of nothing more than a desire to see a law enforced against someone else. The Chamber responds that its involvement in the political process that culminated in adoption of the 1994 amendments and its status as an entity similarly regulated by the challenged statutes deserve legal protection.
This circuit has opted for a rather expansive notion of the interest sufficient to invoke intervention of right. See Purnell, 925 F.2d at 948; Bradley v. Milliken, 828 F.2d 1186, 1192 (6th Cir.1987) ("[T]his court has acknowledged that 'interest' is to be construed liberally."). We have, for example, noted that an intervenor need not have the same standing necessary to initiate a lawsuit, Purnell, 925 F.2d at 948, and cited with approval decisions of other courts "reject[ing] the notion that Rule 24(a)(2) requires a specific legal or equitable interest." Id.; cf. Associated Builders & Contractors v. Perry, 16 F.3d 688 (6th Cir.1994) (noting that intervenor need not have standing before district court but distinguishing standing required for appeal). The inquiry into the substantiality of the claimed interest is necessarily fact-specific.
While none of our cases have addressed the significance to be accorded a proposed intervenor's interest in the validity of legislation, the Ninth Circuit has adopted a broader rule that a public interest group that is involved in the process leading to adoption of legislation has a cognizable interest in defending that legislation. See Idaho Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392, 1397 (9th Cir.1995); Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir.1983); see also State of Idaho v. Freeman, 625 F.2d 886 (9th Cir.1980). Idaho Farm Bureau supports our conclusion in this case that the rules governing intervention are "construed broadly in favor of the applicants." 58 F.3d at 1397 (citing United States v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576, 587 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, Makah Indian Tribe v. United States, 501 U.S. 1250, 111 S.Ct. 2889, 115 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1991)). There, the intervening public interest group had been involved in a separate suit in a matter related to the issues in controversy. It had filed a timely motion to intervene, had supported the action of the defendant in the case--just as the Chamber has supported the legislation challenged in the instant case--and "had been active in the process" leading to the litigation. Id. at 1398. The court was also satisfied that the Fish & Wildlife Agency (FWA) (the government entity defendant) would not have adequately represented the intervenor's interest. Members of the intervening group, moreover, had "direct contact" with the subject of the litigation and FWA had failed to appeal an important ruling on a significant issue of great concern to the intervenor. If anything, however, the successful intervenors in Idaho Farm Bureau had less direct interest and exposure to potential injury than does the Chamber in this case, although the bases for intervention were generally the same. Similarly, in Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt, the intervening public interest group also supported the position of the government defendant and had actively opposed the plaintiff in the administrative process leading to the governmental action. 713 F.2d at 525.
In Meek v. Metropolitan Dade County, 985 F.2d 1471 (11th Cir.1993), the Eleventh Circuit, in a suit challenging the country's at-large system for electing county commissioners, ordered intervention as of right for individuals seeking to uphold that system. There, the court identified the intervenors' interest as "maintaining the election system that governed their exercise of political power, a democratically established system that the district court's order had altered." Id. at 1480. The situation now before us is analogous, as the Chamber seeks to vindicate the statutory scheme that regulates political contributions by labor unions and corporations, contributions that can have a substantial impact upon the exercise of political power in Michigan by influencing the outcome of elections. Under somewhat similar circumstances, in the State of New York, pharmacists and their association were permitted to intervene as of right in order to defend their financial interests with respect to a state regulation prohibiting the advertising of prescription drug prices that was under attack in a lawsuit brought by consumers. New York Pub. Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents, 516 F.2d 350 (2d Cir.1975).
Plaintiffs rely principally upon Athens Lumber Co. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 690 F.2d 1364 (11th Cir.1982). In that case, Athens Lumber sued the Federal Election Commission challenging a provision of the Federal Elections Commission Act that limited corporate expenditures. Id. A labor union and its president sought to intervene on behalf of defendant, claiming an interest in not being harmed financially in federal elections by corporate contributions. Id. at 1366. The union had no contact at all with the corporation, nor had it been shown to have been a part of the legislative process. The corporation challenged only the application of the law to its own contributions. The court denied the application, correctly in our view, because the union lacked a "direct, substantial, legally protectable interest" inasmuch as it was not a "real party in interest in the transaction which is the subject of the proceeding." Id. The court went on to state that the "sole basis of [the union's] interest is general concern ... shared with all unions and all citizens concerned about the ramifications of direct corporate expenditures." Id. The court denied the application, holding that the "interest is so generalized it will not support a claim for intervention as of right." Id.
We acknowledge that our holding is not without limit, and do not disagree with Athens Lumber on its facts. However, based upon the particularly compelling facts presented in the case before us, we find it to be clearly distinguishable. The evidence shows that the Chamber was (1) a vital participant in the political process that resulted in legislative adoption of the 1994 amendments in the first place, (2) a repeat player in Campaign Finance Act litigation, (3) a significant party which is adverse to the challenging union in the political process surrounding Michigan state government's regulation of practical campaign financing, and (4) an entity also regulated by at least three of the four statutory provis