# City of Pontiac Retired Employees v. Louis Schimmel

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 5, 2014 · 751 F.3d 427

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9799530

## Case

- **Full name:** CITY OF PONTIAC RETIRED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION; Delmer Anderson; Thomas Hunter; Henry C. Shoemaker; Yvette Talley; Debra Woods; John Claya, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Louis SCHIMMEL, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Emergency Manager of the City Pontiac; Cathy Square, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as the Director of Human Resources and Labor Relations for the City Pontiac; City of Pontiac, Defendants-Appellees, Bill Schuette, Attorney General of Michigan, Intervenor-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 5, 2014
- **Citations:** 751 F.3d 427; 71 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 698; 199 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3268; 59 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 118; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8392; 2014 WL 1758913
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McKEAGUE
- **Judges:** Batchelder, Boggs, Moore, Cole, Clay, Gibbons, Rogers, Sutton, Cook, McKeague, Griffin, Kethledge, White, Stranch, Donald
- **Cited by:** 178 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9799530

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that, in determining whether to grant or deny a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, this Court must consider four factors: “(1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable …
- recognizing that “[l]egal, factual, and equitable considerations have developed 69 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1411 Doc: 75 Filed: 04/10/2026 Pg: 70 of 88 significantly since the district court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction,” and thus vacating the district c…
- explaining in an action challenging the constitutionality of a Michigan statute that the court granted rehearing en banc and “allow[ed] the Michigan Attorney General to intervene on behalf of the State of Michigan.”
- noting the “district court failed to consider that a reduction in health care benefits can cause irreparable harm” and remanding to the district court to “consider whether injunctive relief is proper”
- noting that courts need not “make specific findings concerning each of the four factors . . . if fewer factors are dispositive of the issue” (citations omitted)

## Opinion text

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I fully concur in the court’s ruling today, but write separately to afford one point of clarification.
The majority opinion states: “The plain language of this section [meaning subsection (1) of 11 U.S.C. § 903 ] is not limited to bankruptcy proceedings.” True enough. However, § 903(1) does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of, and in fact an exception to, the main point of a longer sentence. The principal purpose of § 903 is to make clear that Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code does not limit or impair State power. In its entirety, § 903 provides:
This chapter does not limit or impair the power of a State to control, by legislation or otherwise, a municipality of or in such State in the exercise of the political or governmental powers of such municipality, including expenditures for such exercise, but—
(1) a State law prescribing a method of composition of indebtedness of such municipality may not bind any creditor that does not consent to such composition; and
(2) a judgment entered under such a law may not bind a creditor that does not consent to such composition.
II U.S.C. § 903.
Thus, subsection (1) is an exception to the general proposition that Chapter 9 does not limit or impair State power. The exception appears to reflect congressional intent that where Chapter 9 is invoked, it does operate to limit or impair State power in relation to the specific type of State law described in subsection (1). Viewed in context, then, the plain language of § 903(1) may be construed to mean, and today’s opinion should not be read to foreclose the possibility, that § 903(1) repre *434 sents a specific limitation on State power only where Chapter 9 has been invoked.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9799530. Public record. Not legal advice.