Property Owners File Federal Appeal Over Unlawful Permit Condition Imposed by Michigan State Official

For Immediate Release | January 04, 2026
https://olcplc.com/public/media?1767566162

OLC clients Stephen and Deborah Gmeiner, property owners in Antrim County, Michigan, have filed their brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, challenging a district court’s early dismissal of their lawsuit against Keri Kent, an Environmental Quality Analyst with the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). The case, Gmeiner v. Kent (Case No. 25-2000), centers on allegations that EGLE officials unlawfully conditioned the issuance of a wetlands permit on an unauthorized indemnification clause, violating constitutional principles and exceeding her statutory authority.

The Gmeiners own littoral property along the shore of Torch Lake in Milton Township. Their modest project involved constructing a six-foot-wide pathway using permeable materials to provide safe access from upland areas to the lake’s edge, minimizing environmental impact. After EGLE initially denied their permit application under Part 303 of Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), the Gmeiners successfully challenged the denial in an administrative hearing. On December 9, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Michael St. John overturned the denial and ordered the permit’s issuance, specifying construction parameters without any mention of indemnification.

Despite the state’s decision not to appeal the ALJ’s ruling, making it final, EGLE withheld the permit unless the Gmeiners agreed to a new condition requiring them to indemnify and hold harmless the State of Michigan, its departments, officials, and representatives from any claims arising from their actions under the permit. The Gmeiners objected, arguing that NREPA contains no such requirement and that the condition shifts open-ended legal and financial risks from the government to private citizens. When Kent refused to remove the provision, the Gmeiners filed suit.

In their brief filed on January 2, 2026, the Gmeiners argue that the district court erred in dismissing their claims of unconstitutional conditions and ultra vires actions. They contend that the indemnification demand constitutes coercion, forcing them to surrender legal rights in exchange for a benefit they are entitled to by law. The brief also asserts that the court abused its discretion by denying preliminary injunctive relief, despite an ongoing violation and irreparable harm to their property rights.

“This case is fundamentally about the limits of government power,” said Philip L. Ellison, attorney for the Gmeiners and principal at Outside Legal Counsel PLC. “These property owners secured their permit through the administrative process. For a state official to then dangle it like a carrot, demanding they assume unlimited liability not required by statute, is effectively extortion.”

The appeal seeks reversal of the district court’s judgment, reinstatement of the case, and issuance of a preliminary injunction compelling the permit’s release without the disputed clause. 

Oral argument has not yet been scheduled.

###