Christine Gibbons v. Betty Gibbs

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 19, 2024
• Docket: 23-2254
• Status: Published

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2254 Doc: 39 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 9

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1902

CHRISTINE GIBBONS,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

BETTY ANN GIBBS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Lynchburg Electoral Board, and in her personal capacity; STEVEN TROXEL, in his official capacity as Vice Chair of the Lynchburg Electoral Board, and in his personal capacity,

Defendants – Appellants,

and

THE ELECTORAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG,

Defendant.

No. 23-2254

BETTY ANN GIBBS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Lynchburg Electoral Board, and in her personal capacity; STEVEN TROXEL, in his official capacity as Vice Chair of the Lynchburg Electoral Board, and in his personal capacity,

Defendants – Appellants, USCA4 Appeal: 23-2254 Doc: 39 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 9

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Robert S. Ballou, District Court Judge. (6:23-cv-00035-RSB; 6:23-cv-00035- RSB-CKM)

Argued: March 22, 2024 Decided: April 19, 2024

Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and M. Hannah LAUCK, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

Orders affirmed by published opinion. Judge Heytens wrote the opinion, which Judge Quattlebaum and Judge Lauck joined.

ARGUED: David Patrick Corrigan, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellants. Stephen B. Pershing, KALIJARVI, CHUZI, NEWMAN & FITCH, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Maurice S. Fisher, Jr., Blaire H. O’Brien, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2254 Doc: 39 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 3 of 9

TOBY HEYTENS, Circuit Judge:

When a panel of this Court decides a legal issue in a published opinion, that ruling

is binding on all future panels and district courts within this circuit unless it is abrogated

by the Supreme Court or by an en banc decision of this Court. That rule does not disappear

just because a future litigant identifies a fact, theory, or line of argument the previous panel

could have but did not consider. Applying those principles here, we affirm the district

court’s denial of the appellants’ motions to dismiss.

I.

This case involves the appointment of a general registrar of elections in Lynchburg,

Virginia. Under Virginia law, elections are overseen locally by three-member electoral

boards consisting of one Democrat, one Republican, and one member of the party of the

sitting governor. Va. Code § 24.2-106(A). Each board appoints a general registrar. § 24.2-

110. Boards may remove registrars who “fail to . . . maintain certification” or “fail[ ] to

discharge the duties of [their] office.” § 24.2-109(A)(i). Registrars may not, however, be

removed because of their political affiliation—nor may a board “fail[ ] to reappoint” an

incumbent registrar on such a basis. McConnell v. Adams, 829 F.2d 1319, 1322 (4th Cir.

1987).

Plaintiff Christine Gibbons was appointed as registrar in 2018. The board that

appointed Gibbons included two Democrats and one Republican, but the vote was

unanimous.

Gibbons’ most recent term expired in 2023. At that point, the board had two

Republican members and one Democratic member. Before Gibbons’ term expired, the

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2254 Doc: 39 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 4 of 9

board told her it would be accepting applications for her position and that she would have

to reapply if she wanted to be considered. Gibbons reapplied, but the two Republican

members voted to appoint a different candidate who was a registered Republican.

Gibbons responded by suing the board and its two Republican members, alleging

the decision not to reappoint her was based on her political affiliation and violated the First

Amendment. As relief, Gibbons sought a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, money

damages, and attorneys’ fees.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in two motions that—read

together—asserted that sovereign immunity barred all of Gibbons’ claims. The district

court agreed in part and disagreed in part. The court dismissed Gibbons’ claims against the

board itself as barred by sovereign immunity, and Gibbons has not appealed that ruling.

But the court denied the individual board members’ motions to dismiss in two orders,

concluding that the board members could be sued for equitable relief in their official

capacities and for damages in their personal capacities.

The board members appealed both orders, and we consolidated the appeals. We

have jurisdiction over the board members’ appeals under the collateral order doctrine.

See Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 147

(1993). “[T]he existence of sovereign immunity is a question of law that we review de

novo.” Franks v. Ross, 313 F.3d 184, 192 (4th Cir. 2002).

II.

We reject the board members’ argument that sovereign immunity bars Gibbons’

claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against them in their official capacities. True,

4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2254 Doc: 39 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 5 of 9

“[s]uits against state officials in their official capacity” are “treated as suits against the

State” and are thus barred by sovereign immunity to the extent that they seek monetary

relief. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991). But there is also a well-settled corollary—

associated with Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)—that allows suits “for declaratory

or injunctive relief against state officers in their official capacities.” Reed v. Goertz,

598 U.S. 230, 234 (2023).

The board members contend the Ex parte Young doctrine does not apply here

because neither of them standing alone had the ability to prevent Gibbons from being

reappointed as registrar and neither has the unilateral power to reinstate her to that position.

Instead, the board members say that “[r]einstatement would require that action be taken by

the Board as a whole.” 23-1902 Appellants Br. 8. The board members cite various decisions

they claim hold that sovereign immunity applies in such circumstances and urge us to

follow suit. See 23-1902 Appellants Reply Br. 2 (citing Barnett v. University of N.M. Bd.

of Regents, 562 Fed. Appx. 692, 693 (10th Cir. 2014); Stewart v. Nottoway Cnty., No. 3:22-

cv-00635, 2023 WL 4849936, at *8 (E.D. Va. July 28, 2023); Caldwell v. Nottoway Cnty.,

No. 3:22-cv-00636, 2023 WL 4850156, at *9 (E.D. Va. July 28, 2023)).

We decline the board members’ invitation. The reason is not that we conclude the

argument is wrong—though we do not conclude it is right, either. Instead, it is because we

lack the authority to accept the board members’ argument regardless of its merit.

More than 35 years ago, a published opinion of this Court affirmed a district court’s

grant of the same relief Gibbons seeks under circumstances materially identical to those

presented here. There, as here, former Virginia registrars sued individual board members,

5 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2254 Doc: 39 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 6 of 9

alleging they had not been reappointed “solely because” of their political affiliation.

McConnell, 829 F.2d at 1322. There, as here, the former registrars sought injunctive relief

against the board members in their official capacities. See id. The district court ordered the

defendants to reinstate the registrars, and this Court affirmed. See id. at 1329. Citing

Ex parte Young, the Court rejected the notion that “the state’s eleventh amendment

immunity” prevented the district court from “requiring the” individual board members to

“rehire” the former registrars. Id. at 1329–30.

The board members insist McConnell does not control here because the Court’s

opinion did not discuss “the specific question of whether the Ex parte Young exception

applies when the authority to act rests entirely with a board as a whole rather than with

individual members.” 23-1902 Appellants Br. 16. That is both true and irrelevant. Few—

if any—judicial opinions reflect on and reject every conceivable counterargument, and “the

rule that one panel cannot overrule” another would be weak tea indeed if all a later panel

had to do was identify a fact, theory, or argument a previous panel did not address.

McMellon v. United States, 387 F.3d 329, 356 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc). To be sure, not

“everything said in a panel opinion binds future panels,” and the line between holding and

dicta is notoriously elusive. Payne v. Taslimi, 998 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 2021). But if

stare decisis means anything, it means a future court lacks the authority to say a previous

court was wrong about how it resolved the actual legal issue before it. And that is exactly

what the board members are asking us to do here because—as they acknowledged at oral

argument—there is no way we could adopt their proposed rule without saying McConnell

wrongly affirmed the grant of injunctive relief in that case. See Oral Arg. 2:30–3:22.

6 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2254 Doc: 39 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 7 of 9

The board members do not identify a “subsequent en banc opinion of this court or a

superseding contrary decision of the Supreme Court” that abrogates McConnell. United

States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 311 (4th Cir. 2005). They also do not assert that the legal

framework for appointing and reappointing registrars in Virginia has changed in any

material way since McConnell was decided. McConnell thus remains binding. And, under

McConnell, individual members of Virginia electoral boards may be sued in their official

capacities for equitable relief under Ex parte Young.

III.

We also reject the board members’ assertion that Gibbons’ damages claims against

them are barred by sovereign immunity. Neither the Eleventh Amendment nor the broader

doctrine of state sovereign immunity it reflects forbids “suits to impose individual and

personal liability on state officials” under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983.” Hafer, 502 U.S. at 31

(quotation marks removed). But the board members insist that Gibbons’ claims for

damages against them are different because here the Commonwealth of Virginia is the

“real, substantial party in interest.” 23-2254 Appellants Br. 11 (quotation marks removed).

That argument fails to convince.

The board members rely mainly on Martin v. Wood, 772 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 2014).

In Martin, this Court held that a suit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by

state officials “in their individual capacities” was really a suit against the Commonwealth

of Virginia and was thus barred by sovereign immunity. Id. at 193 (emphasis removed).

The Court reached that conclusion after announcing and applying a five-factor test to

determine “the real, substantial party in interest.” Id. at 196.

7 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2254 Doc: 39 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 8 of 9

So far, so good for the board members. But now comes the problem. Gibbons’ suit

is not an action under the FLSA—it is a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. And in Adams v.

Ferguson, 884 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2018), this Court specifically considered, and specifically

rejected, the argument that “the Martin factors” “apply to [Section] 1983 claims.” Id. at

226. The Court explained that the FLSA and Section 1983 are “very different statute[s],”

and it concluded that applying the Martin factors to Section 1983 claims would stray from

the Supreme Court’s decision in Hafer and “undermine the very purpose of

[Section] 1983.” Id.

The board members note that Adams “is factually distinguishable” from this case.

23-2254 Appellants Br. 12. Once again, that is true but irrelevant. Faced with an argument

that it should apply the Martin factors in the case before it, Adams declined to do so, and

the only reason the Court gave had nothing to do with the facts of Roxanne Adams’

individual case. Instead, the Adams Court announced and applied a general rule: “[T]he

Martin factors,” it held, do not “apply to” actions under Section 1983—full stop. 884 F.3d

at 226. So, once again, principles of stare decisis preclude us from adopting the board

members’ argument that—contra Adams—the Martin factors really do apply in some

Section 1983 cases. *

Finally, the board members cursorily assert that, even under Adams, Gibbons’

claims are still barred because her complaint fails “to truly distinguish between” her claims

* The board members assert we “should follow” a post-Adams district court decision that applied the Martin factors in analyzing a case under Section 1983. 23-2254 Appellants Br. 19 (citing Stewart, 2023 WL 4849936, at *8). For reasons that should be clear by now, we may not and do not do so. 8 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2254 Doc: 39 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 9 of 9

against the board members in their personal and official capacities. 23-2254 Appellants Br.

18. We disagree. Fairly read, the complaint makes clear that Gibbons’ request for damages

from the board members applies only if the board members “are proven at trial to have

engaged in the violations . . . in their personal capacities,” and that Gibbons seeks to hold

them liable “as individuals.” 23-1902 JA 21. That is precisely what the Supreme Court’s

precedent and our own permits. See Hafer, 502 U.S. at 28; Adams, 884 F.3d at 25–26.

Indeed, this Court has stated that “a plaintiff ’s request for compensatory . . . damages” in

a Section 1983 suit may itself be evidence that a state officer is being sued in their personal

capacity “since such relief is unavailable in official capacity suits.” Biggs v. Meadows,

66 F.3d 56, 61 (4th Cir. 1995).

* * *

Cases involving the intersection of sovereign immunity, Section 1983, and the

Ex parte Young doctrine can pose difficult legal questions. But one benefit of stare decisis

is we need only answer those questions once. See, e.g., Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature

of the Judicial Process 149 (1921) (noting that the “labor of judges would be increased

almost to the breaking point if every past decision could be reopened in every case, and

one could not lay one’s own course of bricks on the secure foundation of the courses laid

by others who had gone before”). The district court’s orders are therefore

AFFIRMED.