A legal battle between Michael Miller and County of Lancaster highlights the fine line between preventing frivolous lawsuits and suppressing public interest litigation.  What began as Miller’s effort to obtain election records under Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law (RTKL) has turned into a larger fight over free speech, government transparency, and the right to challenge official actions in court.

The County’s Move: Sanctions to Stop Miller

In May 2024, County of Lancaster’s attorney, Sarah Hyser-Staub, filed a motion asking the court to impose sanctions—a legal penalty—against Miller.  She accused him of filing baseless lawsuits just to harass County and demanded $30,000 in legal fees.  Staub warned Miller that unless he dropped his case within 21 days, County would move forward with the sanctions.

After the court dismissed Miller’s case on September 30, 2024, Staub revived the sanctions effort in December by asking the court to take “judicial notice” of Miller’s later filings in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and in another district court.  In other words, she wanted the court to officially recognize Miller’s continued legal actions as proof that he was abusing the legal system.

But Miller had already appealed the case to the Third Circuit on October 15, 2024, which meant the district court no longer had the power to make decisions about the case.  This transfer of authority is based on a rule established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982).  Griggs made it clear that once an appeal is filed, the lower court loses jurisdiction over the main issues in the case.  At that point, the lower court can only deal with unrelated, “collateral” matters.

Miller’s Defense: Calling Out Retaliation

Miller argues that the County’s sanctions motion isn’t really about stopping baseless lawsuits—it’s about punishing him for trying to hold the government accountable.  He insists that his lawsuits were legitimate attempts to access election records and ensure transparency.

Miller believes that Staub’s decision to push for sanctions after the case was dismissed and during the appeal was meant to scare him away from continuing his fight.  He points out that the magistrate judge described the sanctions as “inextricably intertwined” with the main case, meaning they were too closely connected to the issues he had already appealed.

Because the appeal transferred control to the Third Circuit, Miller says the district court can’t rule on sanctions.  He argues that Staub’s actions go against the Griggs decision, which blocks lower courts from making rulings on matters that are part of an active appeal.

The County’s Argument: Defending the Sanctions

County officials claim Miller’s legal battles are part of a long-running pattern of frivolous lawsuits designed to waste time and taxpayer money.  They argue that Miller’s later filings repeat the same arguments the district court already dismissed, justifying sanctions to stop him from further clogging the courts.

County also insists that its sanctions motion is separate from the appeal and falls under the category of collateral issues that the district court can still handle.  By asking the court to take judicial notice of Miller’s ongoing filings, County says it is simply keeping the court informed about Miller’s repeated legal actions.

Miller’s Response: A Broader Fight for Free Speech

Miller argues that the County’s actions threaten not just his case, but the rights of others trying to hold government accountable.  He believes that allowing the County to push for sanctions after the case was dismissed sets a dangerous precedent, sending a message that challenging the government can come at a steep financial cost.

Miller points out that his case isn’t just about him—it’s part of a larger effort to ensure election transparency and protect constitutional rights.

He warns that if the courts allow sanctions like this, other public interest litigants might be discouraged from pursuing similar cases.

Miller highlights the Griggs decision, reinforcing that the district court should not be involved in the case after the appeal was filed.  He argues that Staub’s push for sanctions after the appeal violates established legal boundaries.

Why This Case Matters

The case between Miller and County of Lancaster raises important questions about the use—and possible abuse—of judicial sanctions.  Sanctions are meant to discourage people from filing meritless lawsuits, but they can also be used by powerful entities to silence legitimate challenges.

Miller’s case serves as a warning about the risks facing individuals who try to stand up to the government, especially when they don’t have legal representation.  If courts allow sanctions to be used as a tool for retaliation, it could discourage others from pursuing public interest cases, ultimately weakening transparency and accountability.

At its core, this case tests whether the legal system will protect the public’s right to challenge the government or allow procedural penalties like sanctions to become a weapon against dissent.  The outcome could set an important precedent for how courts handle sanctions in cases that involve public interest litigation.

By deciding this case, the courts have an opportunity to reaffirm their role in protecting constitutional rights and ensuring that the justice system remains open and accessible to everyone, not just those with the resources to fight back.

www.ShowMeTheBallots.net
#ShowMeTheBallots