Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Ass'n of Comm’y Org. for Reform Now (ACORN) v. Edgar, 56 F.3d 791, 794-95 (7th Cir.1995). 143 . 133 S.Ct. at 2262-63 (Thomas, J., dissenting). 144 . Id. at 2268 (Thomas, J., dissenting). 145 . Id. at 2270 (Thomas, J,, dissenting). 146 . Id. at 2274 (Alito, X, dissenting). 147 . Id. at 2255 (footnote omitted). 148 . See id.; 52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(1). 149 .Prior to the EAC’s January 29, 2016 decision to modify the state-specific rules for the Kansas Federal Form, the State was required to conduct a two-tiered system for those who registered by mail. Under Kobach, tire EAC’s earlier decision to reject the state-specific instructions requiring DPOC was upheld, but the State form continued to require DPOC. 150 . Compare U.S. Student Ass’n Found. v. Land, 546 F.3d 373, 382-83 (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>), with Common Cause of Colo. v. Buescher, 750 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that federal law defines fiduciary capacity and fraud or defalcation (B) holding claims preempted where plaintiffs sought to enjoin and declare unlawful the very statement that federal law permits and defines because sueh relief would impose a burden through state law that is not identical to the requirements under section 343r (C) holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law (D) holding that missouri law applied to the plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claim because it is corporate law that defines the contours of that duty (E) holding federal and not state law defines the term registrant
Output (English): holding claims preempted where plaintiffs sought to enjoin and declare unlawful the very statement that federal law permits and defines because sueh relief would impose a burden through state law that is not identical to the requirements under section 343r