David William McKeague

The case involves a Chinese citizen petitioning for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' May 2006 denial of her second motion to reopen removal proceedings, after her asylum claims based on China's population control policy were rejected for lack of credibility. After the petition was filed, the BIA granted her motion to reconsider and issued a September 2006 decision that addressed her arguments regarding an exception to filing deadlines under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D), but she did not seek review of this new decision. The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the September decision effectively vacated the May decision and became the operative final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). The reasoning centers on the principle that a timely grant of reconsideration by the BIA replaces the prior order, so a separate petition for review of the new decision is required to confer appellate jurisdiction.

immigrationprocedure

This case involved Thomas M. Cooley Law School's challenge to the American Bar Association's denial of acquiescence for proposed satellite campuses in Rochester and Grand Rapids, Michigan, after Cooley began operations without prior approval and was found noncompliant with accreditation standards on admissions, faculty, and resources. The court granted the ABA's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on all six federal and state claims while denying Cooley's cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the ABA's Accreditation Committee and Council properly applied existing standards and procedures, including site evaluations and hearings under Rule 13, and that Cooley's novel interpretation of Rule 19(d) did not excuse the need for prior acquiescence under Standard 105 before implementing major program changes.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community seeking declaratory relief to block Michigan officials and townships from imposing state ad valorem property taxes on fee-simple lands within the tribe's reservation that were held by the tribe or its members. These lands originated from the 1854 Treaty with the Chippewa, which established permanent reservations and included allotment provisions under Article III along with removal protections in Article XI. The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' motion. The court's reasoning centered on treaty interpretation, historical context showing the Indians' intent to secure permanent non-removable homes, and distinctions from Supreme Court precedent like Cass County, finding that the lands retained restrictions and protections against state taxation.

taxesfederal powerproperty

This case involved plaintiff Marianne Anderson's claim for disability retirement benefits under Emerson Electric Co.'s employee retirement plan, governed by ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Anderson had over 14 years of service when her employment ended in 1995 at age 33, but she applied for benefits in 2004 after turning 40 and being found permanently disabled. The plan administrator denied the claim, interpreting the plan to require that an active participant meet the age, service, and disability criteria while still employed, and the claims review board upheld the denial. The court reviewed the decision under the arbitrary and capricious standard and affirmed it, holding that the administrator's interpretation requiring all conditions to be satisfied at termination was reasonable and supported by the plan language, including the term 'active participant.'

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved former Wal-Mart employee Leona Robinson, who alleged she was wrongfully terminated in July 2002 in retaliation for raising concerns about under-reporting of employee work hours and expressing reluctance to testify in related litigation. She brought claims under the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Michigan public policy. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on both claims, finding no genuine issue of material fact. For the FLSA claim, Robinson failed to show that her complaints constituted protected activity that caused the adverse actions. For the public policy claim, the court held that the FLSA provided the exclusive remedy, precluding a separate state-law action.

labor & employment

This case involves a pro se plaintiff's civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against state bar officials, alleging improper delays in processing his bar application and privacy violations related to communications with a judge. The plaintiff sought to subpoena investigative files from the non-party Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) concerning a complaint he filed against the judge. The JTC moved to quash the subpoena, asserting state law privileges. The district court affirmed the magistrate judge's order denying a blanket privilege over the JTC files but permitting disclosure of factual materials subject to a confidentiality order. The court reasoned that federal common law governs privileges in federal question cases, state confidentiality rules do not automatically create federal evidentiary privileges, and the Federal Rules favor liberal discovery with appropriate protective measures.

civil rightsprocedure

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court ruling in a Chapter 13 adversary proceeding where debtors Rebecca and Ronald Mourer alleged that EquiCredit violated the Truth in Lending Act and Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act when refinancing their home loan in May 2000 by failing to properly disclose a yield spread premium and other terms. The bankruptcy court found a violation based on the premium's treatment as a finance charge that triggered disclosure rules, awarded damages for inadequate disclosures in a retainable form, but denied rescission due to the prior confirmation of the Chapter 13 plan. On appeal, the district court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the yield spread premium was not a fee payable by the consumer at or before closing under the plain language of Regulation Z, so it did not trigger the higher disclosure requirements, but that EquiCredit did violate the separate requirement to provide disclosures the borrowers could keep. The court further held that rescission was unavailable because the provided notice of the right to cancel conformed to the model form and the three-day period had expired, though it remanded for appropriate relief on the remaining disclosure violation.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved the estate of sixteen-year-old Aaron Frayer, who died by suicide while detained at the Ingham County Jail after pleading guilty to criminal sexual conduct charges. Plaintiff Carol Soles sued the county, mental health providers, and a deputy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to Aaron's serious mental health needs, along with state-law claims of gross negligence and negligence in failing to prevent the suicide or maintain a safe facility. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding no genuine issue of material fact because the defendants had evaluated and treated Aaron's depression, monitored his condition, and returned him to general population only after documented improvement and a no-harm agreement, with no evidence of constitutional deprivation. The court also held that the public building exception to governmental immunity did not apply to an inmate and that the state claims lacked factual support.

civil rightscriminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

This ERISA case involves plaintiff Thomas Finazzi's challenge to the termination of his long-term disability benefits under an employee benefits plan administered by defendant Paul Revere Life Insurance Company. After initially receiving benefits due to heart conditions including cardiomyopathy and congestive heart failure, the administrator ended payments upon determining that Finazzi could perform sedentary or light work in any suitable occupation, despite contrary opinions from his treating cardiologist. The court reviewed the decision under the arbitrary and capricious standard and concluded it was arbitrary and capricious, ordering reinstatement of benefits. The reasoning centered on the administrator's unreasonable disregard of treating physicians' opinions in favor of non-examining consultants it hired, particularly given the inherent conflict of interest from its dual role in deciding eligibility and paying benefits.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involves a challenge to the termination of supplemental security income (SSI) benefits by the Social Security Administration, which determined that the plaintiff was ineligible as a "fleeing felon" due to an outstanding felony warrant from Montana. The district court reviewed the Appeals Council's decision that found the plaintiff fleeing to avoid prosecution and thus ineligible for benefits starting January 2000. The court disagreed with the magistrate judge's recommendation to affirm, concluding that the statute requires evidence of intent to flee prosecution, which was lacking here as the plaintiff had no initial knowledge of the warrant, lived openly, offered to return voluntarily, and faced no extradition efforts. Accordingly, the court remanded the case to the Commissioner with instructions to reinstate the plaintiff's benefits effective January 2000.

criminal lawfederal power

This case involves an employment discrimination claim under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act brought by Tom Cutts, an African-American former Human Resources Supervisor at McDonald’s, who alleged his termination was racially motivated, along with a related loss-of-consortium claim by his wife. The court granted McDonald’s motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact. The employer’s stated reason for discharge was Cutts’s attempt to secretly tape-record a meeting with supervisors, which raised concerns about confidentiality and trust given his HR role; the court held that Cutts failed to present evidence showing this reason was a pretext for race discrimination. The court also rejected related claims of denial of training or promotion as insufficient to constitute a materially adverse employment action. As a result, both plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved Whirlpool Corporation, a Michigan-based company, suing its former employee Susan King, a Canadian and UK citizen residing in Italy, after she filed suit in Italy seeking severance pay under Italian law. Whirlpool asserted claims for unjust enrichment over foreign tax refunds King received during her expatriate assignments and for a declaratory judgment that she remained an at-will employee under Michigan law who was lawfully terminated. King moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing her contacts with Michigan were too remote and unrelated to the claims. The court granted the motion, finding that although King had transacted business in Michigan by initially entering employment there, the claims arose substantially from her conduct in Italy and exercising jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice due to the burdens on the defendant, Michigan's limited interest, and comity with the pending Italian litigation.

procedurelabor & employment

This case involved a challenge by the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) to a Michigan Civil Service Commission drug and alcohol testing program applied to certain state employees in the Departments of Corrections, Community Health, Education, and Military and Veterans Affairs. The program, incorporated into a collective bargaining agreement, required random, suspicionless testing for employees in positions involving law enforcement, direct health care, access to prisoners, or controlled substances. Proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the UAW claimed the testing violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches. The court upheld the program, finding it justified by special needs beyond ordinary law enforcement that outweighed the employees' privacy interests, based on the nature of the positions and the minimal intrusion of the testing protocol.

civil rightslabor & employmentcriminal law

This case involved a Fourth Amendment challenge by the UAW union to a Michigan Civil Service Commission program requiring random, suspicionless drug and alcohol testing for certain state employees in positions such as corrections, health care, and law enforcement roles, as incorporated into a collective bargaining agreement. The union sought declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing the testing constituted unreasonable searches without individualized suspicion. The court denied the claim and entered judgment for the defendants, holding that the testing was justified by special governmental needs related to public safety and employee fitness in sensitive positions. It applied a balancing test from precedents like Chandler v. Miller and Von Raab, finding the state's interests outweighed employees' privacy expectations even without evidence of a widespread drug problem. The decision emphasized that suspicionless testing is permissible in contexts where safety risks are substantial.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case was an ERISA action under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1) in which plaintiff Charles Lambert challenged the termination of his long-term disability benefits by the plan administrator, Unum Provident Corporation, after he stopped working due to Meniere’s disease. The court reviewed the administrative record under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard and concluded that the termination was not supported by substantial evidence. The administrator had relied on an ambiguous office note from the treating physician and other assessments, but the physician later clarified that the plaintiff remained totally disabled, and no contrary medical evidence refuted that opinion. The court therefore reversed the decision, awarded judgment to the plaintiff, and ordered reinstatement of benefits plus past-due amounts.

labor & employment

This case involved James Deetjen, who was terminated at age 73 from his role as a quote analyst at Anchor Coupling after the company implemented a computer system to automate price quotations; he sued under the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act alleging age discrimination. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The core reasoning was that Deetjen did not establish a prima facie case or show that age was a determining factor, as the position was legitimately eliminated due to automation, and alleged discriminatory comments by supervisors were isolated, not made by the ultimate decision-maker, unrelated to the termination decision, and occurred years earlier.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved a licensed amateur radio operator who sought a special use permit from Algoma Township, Michigan, to construct a 180-foot tower on his property to enable simplex communications over a nearby ridge, after the township's ordinance required such a permit for any tower over 50 feet. The Planning Commission denied the application following reviews by consultants, citing concerns over visual impact in a protected overlay zone and the availability of alternatives like using existing repeaters with a shorter 60-foot tower. The plaintiff sued alleging federal preemption under FCC policy PRB-1 and deprivation of federal rights. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, holding that the township had reasonably accommodated the amateur radio interests and that PRB-1 did not preempt the local zoning decision as a matter of law.

federal powerproperty

The case involved a pro se plaintiff challenging IRS penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6702 for filing frivolous tax returns for 1998 and 1999, as well as his underlying federal income tax obligations, claiming the due-process hearing under § 6330 was invalid. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, affirming the administrative decision to impose the sanctions. It dismissed claims challenging the underlying tax liability for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, as such matters are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the United States Tax Court, and rejected claims for monetary damages due to sovereign immunity. The hearing officer was not required to provide the verifications demanded by the plaintiff.

taxesprocedurefederal power

This case is a civil rights lawsuit brought by a Michigan state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison staff, the Michigan Department of Corrections, and the State of Michigan. The plaintiff challenged a permanent telephone restriction imposed after he attempted to contact his wife in violation of a state court no-contact order, as well as alleged interference with his mail and deficiencies in the prison grievance process, claiming violations of his First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, ruling that the plaintiff had not shown exhaustion of available administrative remedies. The core reasoning is that the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to exhaust such remedies before filing any federal suit regarding prison conditions, and this requirement is mandatory.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved a breach of contract dispute between Viron International Corp. and David Boland, Inc., arising from agreements that included a mandatory forum selection clause designating courts in Orange or Brevard County, Florida, as the sole venue for litigation, along with a Florida choice-of-law provision. Defendants moved to transfer venue to the Middle District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), citing the clause, witness and document locations, and the choice-of-law provision. The court held that the forum selection clause shifted the burden of proof to the plaintiff to demonstrate why the Western District of Michigan was a more appropriate forum than Florida, rejecting arguments that the clause was non-binding boilerplate. Plaintiff failed to meet this burden, leading the court to grant the transfer motion.

procedurebusiness & regulatory