Resurrection School v. Elizabeth Hertel

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
File Name: 21a0258p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
RESURRECTION SCHOOL; CHRISTOPHER MIANECKI,
individually and as next friend on behalf of his minor
children C.M., Z.M., and N.M.; STEPHANIE SMITH,
individually and as next friend on behalf of her minor
child F.S.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
ELIZABETH HERTEL, in her official capacity as the
Director of the Michigan Department of Health and
Human Services; DANA NESSEL, in her official
capacity as Attorney General of the State of Michigan;
LINDA VAIL, in her official capacity as the Health
Officer of Ingham County; CAROL A. SIEMON, in her
official capacity as the Ingham County Prosecuting
Attorney,
Defendants-Appellees.
┐
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
┘
No. 20-2256
On Petition for Rehearing En Banc.
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids;
No. 1:20-cv-01016—Paul Lewis Maloney, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: November 10, 2021
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; MOORE, COLE, CLAY, GIBBONS,
GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, WHITE, STRANCH, DONALD, THAPAR,
BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________
COUNSEL
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC: Erin Elizabeth Mersino, GREAT LAKES
JUSTICE CENTER, Lansing, Michigan, Robert J. Muise, AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW
CENTER, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Appellants. ON RESPONSE: Daniel J. Ping, Joseph T.
Froehlich, Ann M. Sherman, Jennifer Rosa, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY
GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for State of Michigan Appellees. Bonnie G. Toskey, Sarah K.
>

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 20-2256 Resurrection Sch. et al. v. Hertel et al. Page 2
Osburn, COHL, STOKER & TOSKEY, P.C., Lansing, Michigan, for Appellees Linda Vail and
Carol Siemon. ON BRIEF: Brett R. Nolan, OFFICE OF THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY
GENERAL, Frankfort, Kentucky, Daniel H. Blomberg, THE BECKET FUND FOR
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.
_________________
ORDER
_________________
A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service has voted for rehearing en
banc of this case. Sixth Circuit Rule 35(b) provides as follows:
The effect of the granting of a hearing en banc shall be to vacate the previous
opinion and judgment of this court, to stay the mandate and to restore the case on
the docket sheet as a pending appeal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the previous decision and judgment of this court are
vacated, the mandate is stayed and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal.
The Clerk will direct the parties to file supplemental briefs and will schedule this case for
oral argument as soon as possible.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
__________________________________
Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk

-- 2 of 2 --