CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
CHARLES N. KAMINSKI; LINCOLN PARK POLICE AND FIRE RETIREES ASSOCIATION, INC.; MICHAEL J. MOULIOS; LINCOLN PARK MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREES ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
BRAD L. COULTER, et al.,
Defendants,

R. KEVIN CLINTON; NICK KHOURI,
Defendants-Appellants.
   No. 16-1768
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:15-cv-12810—Gershwin A. Drain, District Judge.
Argued: March 8, 2017
Decided and Filed: July 25, 2017
Before: BOGGS, SILER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. This is a complicated case about the scope of governmental immunity. The plaintiffs-appellees are retirees of the City of Lincoln Park. In 2014, the city’s dire financial condition led Michigan officials to place the city under the purview of an Emergency Manager pursuant to the authority granted by P.A. 436. The Emergency Manager, with the approval of Michigan’s then-Treasurer Kevin Clinton, issued ten orders that temporarily replaced Lincoln Park retiree health-care benefits with monthly stipends that retirees could use to purchase individual health-care coverage. Dissatisfied, some of the retirees brought suit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that, inter alia, the orders violated their constitutional rights secured by the Contracts Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Takings Clause. In their complaint, the plaintiffs-appellees named a host of city and state officials and government entities as defendants, including Michigan Treasurer Kevin Clinton, who was sued in both his individual and official capacities. As the litigation progressed, Nick Khouri became Treasurer of the State of Michigan and was subsequently substituted in Clinton’s place in his official capacity. Both Clinton and Khouri filed motions to dismiss, arguing that qualified immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity rendered them immune from suit. The district court disagreed, holding that neither immunity theory applied to their actions and that the suit could proceed. For the following reasons, we reverse.