Key Points

  • The panel vacated rulings on the Fair and Just Treatment claim and remanded for dismissal without prejudice.
  • Michigan has not addressed whether the Fair and Just Treatment clause supports a private right of action.
  • Novel state constitutional questions and the dismissal of federal claims favored declining supplemental jurisdiction.
  • The decision does not decide the merits of Williams’ state constitutional claim.

The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s rulings on Scott Williams’ Michigan Fair and Just Treatment claim and remanded with instructions to dismiss that claim, along with his related respondeat superior theory, without prejudice. Williams had challenged summary-judgment rulings involving his removal as president of the Addison Community Schools board.

The panel held that the district court abused its discretion by retaining supplemental jurisdiction after disposing of Williams’ federal claims. The remaining claim required a first-instance interpretation of Michigan’s Fair and Just Treatment clause, including whether a private right of action exists and the meaning of terms used in the provision.

“Michigan has not yet spoken to the question of whether a private right of action exists for claims brought under the Fair and Just Treatment clause of the Michigan constitution.”

The court identified several considerations favoring dismissal of the state claim: the federal claims had been dismissed, the remaining issues were novel and complex matters of state law, and federal-state comity weighed against interpreting a distinctive provision of the Michigan Constitution. It also noted that there is no federal analogue for the clause and no Michigan statute like Section 1983 creating a right of action for certain constitutional violations.

Although efficiency favored retaining jurisdiction, the panel concluded that it did not overcome the comity concerns. “But because this case presents just such a rarely occurring circumstance, it was not a proper exercise of discretion to take on Williams’s Michigan Fair and Just Treatment claim and related theory of respondeat superior liability.”

The ruling does not resolve the merits of Williams’ claim. The panel stressed that district courts ordinarily exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims and described its holding as narrowly tailored to the circumstances presented.