STEPHEN GMEINER; DEBORAH GMEINER, v. KERI KENT, in her individual and official capacities - Articles

All Content

STEPHEN GMEINER; DEBORAH GMEINER, v. KERI KENT, in her individual and official capacities

Posted by: David Lazar on Jul 10, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Philip L. Ellison, OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL, PLC, Hemlock, Michigan, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Gregory G. Justis, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Philip L. Ellison, OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL, PLC, Hemlock, Michigan, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Gregory G. Justis, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee.

Judge(s): SUTTON, Chief Judge; LARSEN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Stephen and Deborah Gmeiner needed a permit to construct a walking path on their lakeside property in northern Michigan. Keri Kent, an analyst with a Michigan agency, eventually granted this permit on the condition that the Gmeiners agree to “indemnify and hold harmless” Michigan for “all claims or causes of action arising from” the “acts or omissions” that the Gmeiners took in “connection with [the] permit.” Permit, R.1-4, PageID 42. The Gmeiners sued over this indemnification clause, reading it broadly to relieve Michigan of liability even for its own misconduct in a suit they might bring against the State. The Gmeiners claimed that the clause imposed an unconstitutional condition on their ability to obtain the permit because it burdened their First Amendment right to petition the government (by filing a lawsuit). They also claimed that Michigan law did not give Kent the power to impose the indemnification clause. But the district court dismissed these federal and state claims at the pleading stage. We agree with this outcome. As for the federal constitutional claim, the Gmeiners’ theory has several problems. They simply assume that the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional- conditions test for the Takings Clause applies to the Petition Clause too. And they misread the scope of the indemnification clause, which requires the Gmeiners to indemnify the State only for their own misconduct. When correctly read, the clause would pass muster even under the unconstitutional-conditions test that the Gmeiners ask us to apply. As for the state-law claim, Michigan’s sovereign immunity bars the Gmeiners from seeking in federal court a declaration that state officials violated state law or an injunction against those officials on state-law grounds. We affirm.

Attachments: