CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
NEW DOE CHILD #1; NEW DOE CHILD #2; NEW DOE PARENT; NEW ROE CHILD #1; NEW ROE CHILD #2; NEW ROE PARENT; NEW POE CHILD; NEW POE PARENT; NEW COE CHILD; NEW COE PARENT; NEW BOE CHILD; NEW BOE PARENT; NEW HOE CHILD #1; NEW HOE CHILD #2; NEW HOE PARENT #1; NEW HOE PARENT #2; HOLLY HUBER; MITCHELL KAHLE; BERNARD KLEIN; MARNI HUEBNER-TIBORSKY; LOREN MILLER; MARTIN MAIER; MICHAEL HOWARD; LARRY KNIGHT; DEVIN KUCHNYA; TRACEY MARTIN; MARK PETRICCA; BEVERLY SHAPIRO; RON THOMAS; DEREK ROSE; GEORGE SHIFFER; NANCY DOLLARD; DENNIS ROSENBLUM; JOSEPH MILON; SALVATORE SALERNO; JESSICA MCQUARTER; SUSAN CARRIER; SARAH MAXWELL; STUART CHISOLM; MICHAEL MARTINEZ; ADAM CLAYMAN; MICHIGAN ATHEISTS; NORTHERN OHIO FREETHOUGHT SOCIETY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; UNITED STATES MINT; UNITED STATES BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING; THE AMERICAN LEGION; AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 16-4345
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron.
No. 5:16-cv-00059—Benita Y. Pearson, District Judge.
Argued: June 16, 2017
Decided and Filed: May 29, 2018
Before: NORRIS, MOORE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Atheists, Humanists, and one Jewish Plaintiff challenge the federal statutes requiring inscription of the National Motto, “In God We Trust,” on U.S. currency. Plaintiffs allege that the currency statutes cause them to bear, affirm, and proselytize an objectionable message in a way that, for the Atheist and Humanist Plaintiffs, violates their core religious beliefs, and, for the Jewish Plaintiff, renders him complicit in the sins of superfluously printing God’s name and destroying God’s printed name. Plaintiffs claim that the statutes violate their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The district court dismissed all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons below, we AFFIRM.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MICHAEL J. THEILE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN; MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE; BUREAU OF ELECTIONS; RUTH JOHNSON, Secretary of State; DIRECTOR OF MICHIGAN BUREAU OF ELECTIONS,
Defendants-Appellees
   No. 17-2275
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:17-cv-12066—Bernard A. Friedman, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: May 29, 2018
Before: MERRITT, WHITE and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant, the Honorable Michael J. Theile (“Theile”), is a Michigan state-court judge. In 2020, the year of the next election for the seat he now holds, Theile will be 71 years of age. Because the Michigan Constitution and the relevant Michigan statute prohibit a person who has attained the age of 70 from being elected or appointed to judicial office, Theile will not be eligible to run for re-election. See Mich. Const. art. VI, § 19(3); Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.411. Asserting that this age limitation under Michigan law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, Theile asks this Court to dispense with rational-basis review of age-based classifications, and instead adopt intermediate scrutiny—a level of review he contends Michigan’s judicial age restriction cannot withstand. In the alternative, Theile argues that even under rational-basis review, the Michigan age restriction fails to pass constitutional muster.

For the reasons set forth herein, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss Theile’s complaint.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
PRISCILLA ANNETTE ANDREWS (16-2383); STANLEY RICHARD KOZLOWSKI III (16-2680),
Debtors-Appellants,
v.
MICHIGAN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY,
Creditor-Appellee.
   Nos. 16-2383/2680
16-2383
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
No. 5:15-cv-13681—John Corbett O’Meara, District Judge.

16-2680
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:16-cv-11323—Paul D. Borman, District Judge.

Argued: June 22, 2017
Decided and Filed: May 29, 2018
Before: SILER, McKEAGUE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SILER, Circuit Judge. These two cases, consolidated for oral argument, present the same question regarding whether a penalty assessed by a governmental unit against the debtor due to fraud is dischargeable in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding. In both cases, the debtors fraudulently obtained unemployment benefits from the state of Michigan, and after determining these benefits were wrongfully paid, Michigan assessed a penalty. The debtors argue that the penalties assessed are dischargeable in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. In each case, the district court disagreed, finding the penalties to be nondischargeable. We affirm the decisions below because the penalties are nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).