# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 21 72

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Mi ss ou ria ns for Fis cal Acco un ta bi li ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

J a m e s K l a h r , i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y a s E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r o f t h e M i s s o u r i E t h i c s C o m m i s s i o n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 11 , 20 16
Fil ed : J ul y

29 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, ARNOLD , and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Mi ss ou ria ns fo r Fi sc al Acco un ta bi li ty (M FA) fo rm ed a cam pa ig n co m

m it te e

on Octo be r 2 2

, 2 0 1 4 —l es s th an 30 da y s be fo re th e Nov em be r 4 el ect io n— in

vi ol at io n o f Mi ss ou ri l aw se ct io n 1 30 .01 1( 8)

. MFA s ue d t he ex ecu ti ve di rect or of 1

All st at ut or y

cit at io ns are t o R SMo Su pp . 20 13 , un le ss ot he rwis e in di cat ed

. 1th e Mi ss ou ri Eth ic s Com m is si on (MEC)

, in hi s offi ci al cap aci ty, se ek in g t o d ecl are

un co ns ti tu ti on al t h e 30 -d ay fo rm at io n de ad li ne

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d a

te m po rary res tra in in g or de r, bu t aft er th e el ect io n, di sm is se d MFA’s su it as no t rip e.

MFA ap pe al s. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91 , t hi s co ur t rev ers es an d

rem an ds

.

I.

Cam pa ig n co m

m it te es are “ fo rm ed by an in di vi du al or gr ou p of in di vi du al s to

rece iv e co nt rib ut io ns or m ak e ex pe nd it ur es an d who se so le pu rp os e is to su pp or t or

op po se th e qu al ifi cat io n an d pa ss ag e of on e or m or e pa rti cu la r ba ll ot m eas ur es in an

el ect io n

. . . .” § 13 0.0 11 (8 )

. The se co m m it te es “ sh al l be fo rm ed no la te r th an th irt y

da y s pr io r to th e el ect io n” an d “ sh al l te rm in at e th e la te r of ei th er th irt y da y s aft er th e

ge ne ral el ect io n or up on th e sa ti sf act io n of al l co m

m i t t e e d e b t aft er th e ge ne ral

el ect io n . . . .” Id

.

“ Any pe rs on who kn owi ng ly acce pt s or m ak es a co nt r i bu ti on or m ak es an

ex pe nd it ur e in vi ol at io n of an y pr ov is io n of th is ch ap te r [1 30 ]

. . . sh al l be he ld li ab le

to th e st at e in ci vi l pe n a l t i e s i n an am ou nt eq ua l to an y su ch co nt rib ut io n or

ex pe nd it ur e.” § 13 0.0 72

. “ Upo n vo te of at le as t fo ur m em be rs , th e co m

m is si on m ay

in it ia te fo rm al jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs se ek in g to ob ta in an y of th e f o l l o win g or de rs :

.

. . (2 ) Pay an y ci vi l pe na lt ie s req ui red by

. . . ch ap te r 13 0.” § 10 5.9 61 .5(2 )

. The MEC

ha s th ro ug h “ reco nc il ia ti on ag reem en ts or ci vi l act io n, th e po wer to se ek fees fo r

vi ol at io ns in an am ou nt no t grea te r th an on e th ou sa nd do ll ars or do ub le th e am ou nt

in vo lv ed in th e vi ol at io n.” § 10 5.9 61 .4(6 )

. In it s ve rif ie d an swe r, th e MEC sa y s th at

it ne go ti at es pa y m en t of a fee wit h th e tre as ur er of a cam pa ig n co m

m it te e th at fo rm s

w i t hi n 30 da y s of th e el ect io n. Co ns en t or de rs sh ow th at th e MEC ne go ti a t e s

pa y m en t of pa rt of th e fee (ab ou t 10 pe rcen t). The rem ai nd er of th e fee is th en st ay ed

-2

-un ti l “ an y fu rth er vi ol at io n of th e cam pa ig n fin an ce la ws un de r Ch ap te r 13 0, RSM o,

wit hi n t he two -y ear p eri od fro m th e d at e o f th is ord er . . . .” 2

Thi rte en da y s b efo re th e Nov em be r 20 14 ge ne ral el ect io n, a gr ou p of

in di vi du al s fo rm ed MFA as a cam pa ig n co m

m it te e. § 13 0.0 11 (8 )

. Tha t sa m e d a y , MFA no ti fie d th e IRS th at it was a po li ti cal or ga ni zat io n un de r se ct io n 52 7, cl ai m in g

it was “ crea te d to en su re th at th e fin an ces of th e St at e of Mi ss ou ri are pr op erl y

r ep res en te d an d ex pl ai ne d to th e vo ti ng ci ti zen s of th e St at e du rin g th e le g i s l a t i v e

pr oc es s.” The ne xt da y , MFA fil ed it s Ar t i c l e s o f In co rp or at io n of a no np ro fit

3

co rp or at io n in Mi ss ou ri, st at in g it s pu rp os e was th e “ ed uc at io n of ge ne ral pu bl ic on

is su es co nc ern in g fis cal res po ns ib il it y .” MFA li st ed it s du rat io n as “ pe rp et ua l,” an d

it rem ai ns in go od st an di ng wit h th e St a t e

. Se e Mis so uri Onl in e Bus in es s Fil in g:

S e a r c h f o r a B u s i n e s s E n t i t y , a v a i l a b l e a t

ht tp s: // bs d.s os .m o.g ov /B us in es sEn ti ty/BESea rch .asp x? Sear ch Ty pe =0 (la st vi si te d

Ju ly 26

, 20 16 ); IRS: S e a r c h Pol iti ca l Org an iz at io n Dis cl os ures , av ai la bl e at

ht tp s: // fo rm s.i rs .go v/ ap p/ po d/ ba si cSe arch /s earc h? ex ecu ti on =e1 s1 (la st vi si te d Ju ly

Add it io na ll y , “ [a]ny pe rs on who pu rp os el y vi ol at es th e pr ov is io ns of [ch ap te r 2

13 0] is gu il ty of a cl as s A m is de m ean or .” § 13 0.0 81 .1 RSMo 20 00

. Se e Im pe y v. Mi ss ou ri Et hi cs Co m m ’n

, 44 2 S.W .3d 42

, 44 (Mo

. ba nc 20 14 ) (rec og ni zi ng “ if th e MEC be li ev es th at th ere are reas on ab le gr ou nd s th at a vi ol at io n of a cri m in al la w ha s

oc cu rred

, th e MEC m ay refe r th e rep or t to th e ap pr op ria te pr os ecu to r up on a vo te of

fo ur m em be rs of th e co m

m is si on .”); § 10 5.9 61 .2 (“ W he n th e co m m is si on co nc lu de s

. . . th at a vi ol at io n of an y cri m in al la w ha s oc cu rred

, an d if th e co m m is si on be li ev es th at cri m in al pr os ecu ti on wou ld be ap pr op ria te up on a v ot e of fo ur m em be rs of th e

co m m is si on , t h e c o m

m is si on sh al l refe r th e rep or t to th e Mi ss ou ri of fic e of

pr os ecu ti on se rv ic es

. . . fo r ap po in tm en t of an at to rn ey to se rv e as sp eci al pr os ecu to r

. . . .”). “ Any pe rs on who fai ls to fil e an y rep or t or st at em en t req ui red by th is ch ap te r [1 30 ] wit hi n th e ti m e pe rio ds sp eci fie d in se ct io ns 13 0.0 11 to 13 0.0 51 is gu il ty of an in frac ti on .” § 1 30 .08 1.2 RSMo 2 00 0

.

On Mar ch 27

, 20 15 —m on th s aft er th e el ect io n— MFA am en de d i t s 5 27 3

pu rp os e to “ Su pp or t Co ns ti tu ti on al am en dm en t 1 0.”

-3

-26 , 2 01 6)

. Se e g e n e r a ll y Pick et t v. Sher id

an Hea lt h Ca re Ct

r. , 6 64 F.3 d 63 2, 64 8
(7 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (rec og ni zi ng “ th e au th or it y of a co ur t to ta ke jud ic ia l no ti ce of

go ve rn m en t web si te s” ).

Acco rd in g to MFA, se ct io n 13 0.0 11 (8 ) pr oh ib it e d i t fro m rece iv in g

co nt rib ut io ns or m ak in g ex pe nd it ur es be cau se it fo rm ed le ss th an 30 da y s be fo re th e

20 14 ge ne ral el ect io n. MFA th us in it ia ll y refr ai ne d fro m rece iv in g co nt rib ut io ns an d

mak i n g ex pe nd it ur es

. Eig ht da y s aft er fo rm at io n, MFA so ug ht de cl arat or y an d

in jun ct iv e rel ie f f

r o m th e 30 -d ay fo rm at io n de ad li ne

. MFA as se rte d th at th e

fo rm at io n de ad l i n e u nc on st it ut io na ll y bu rd en ed it s Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht s to free

sp eech an d po li ti cal as soc ia tio n. Two da y s be fo re th e el ect io n— on Nov em be r 2— th e

di st ric t co ur t is su ed a te m po rary res tra in in g or de r. Se e Mi ss ou ri an s fo r F

i s c a l

A cco unt ab il it y v. Kl ah r , 20 14 W L 55 30 99 6 (W. D. Mo

. Nov

. 2, 20 14 ). M F A t h e n

rece iv ed co nt rib ut io ns an d s pe nt $5 25 on rob oc al ls

.

Afte r th e el ect io n, MFA fil ed th e req ui red te rm in at io n st at em en t. Se e §

13 0.0 21 .8

. Tho ug h th e di st r i c t c o u r t fo un d MFA’s cl ai m s no t m oo t, it di sm is se d

MFA’s clai m s on rip en es s gro un ds , wit ho ut pr ejud ic e. Se e Mi ss ou ri an s for Fi

sc al

A cco unt ab il it y v. Kl ah r , 20 15 W L 18 93 35 9 (W. D. Mo

. Apr

. 27

, 20 15 ). MFA

ap pe al s.

II.

The MEC as se rts MFA la ck s st an di ng be cau se it face s no act ua l or im m in en t

th reat of a co nc ret e an d p art ic ul ari zed in jury-in -fac t.

“St an di ng is al way s a ‘thre sh ol d qu es ti on ’ in de te rm in in g whe th er a fed e r a l

co ur t m ay he ar a c a s e

. ” 2 8 1 C a r e Co m m . v

. A rn es on , 6 38 F.3 d 62 1, 62 7 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 ). A pa rty in vo ki ng fed eral juri sd ic ti on ha s th e bu rd en of es ta bl is hi ng st an di ng

“ fo r each type of rel ie f so ug ht .” Sum m er s v. Ea rt h Is la nd In st

. , 55 5 U.S. 48 8, 49 3

-4

-(2 00 9)

. “ [A]n act ua l co nt ro ve rs y m us t b e ex ta nt at al l st ag es of rev ie w, n ot m erel y

at th e ti m e th e co m

pl ai nt is fil ed .” Prei

se r v. Newk ir k

, 42 2 U.S. 39 5, 4 01 (1 97 5)

. Se e al so Sa la za r v. Buo no , 55 9 U.S. 70 0, 73 1 (2 01 0) (S c a l i a , J., co nc ur rin g) (“ A
pl ai nt iff can no t si de st ep Arti cl e III’s req ui rem en ts by co m bi ni ng a req ue st fo r

in jun ct iv e rel ie f fo r whi ch he ha s st an di ng wit h a req ue st fo r in ju n c t i ve rel ie f fo r

whi ch he la cks st an di ng .”).

[T]o se ek in

jun ct iv e rel ie f, a pl ai nt iff m us t sh ow th at he is

un de r th reat of su ffer in g ‘inju ry in fact ’ th at is co nc ret e an d

pa rti cu la riz ed ; th e th reat m us t be act ua l an d im m in en t, no t

co njec tu ral or hypo th et ic al ; it m us t be f a i r ly tra ceab le to
th e ch al le ng ed act io n of th e de fen da nt ; a n d it m us t be

li ke ly th at a fav or ab le jud ic ia l d e c is io n wil l pr ev en t or red res s t he in

jury.

S u m m er s , 55 5 U.S. at 49 3, qu ot ed in Ber nb eck v. Gal e , 20 16 W L 37 69 48 1

, a t * 2
(8 th Ci r. Ju ly 14

, 20 16 ). To se ek de cl arat or y rel ie f, st an di ng m us t ex is t “ at th e ti m e

of th e h eari ng

. . . . ” Gol

de n v. Zwi ck le r , 39 4 U.S. 1 03 , 10 8 (1 96 9)

.

In th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t co nt ex t, “ two types of in juri es m ay co nf

er Arti cl e III

st an di ng to se ek pr os pe ct iv e rel ie f.” Wa rd v. Uta h

, 32 1 F.3d 12 63

, 12 67 (1 0t h Cir.

20 03 ), ci ti ng Ma ng ua l v. Ro tg er -Sa ba t

, 31 7 F.3 d 45

, 56 (1 st Ci r. 20 03 ). Fi rs t, MFA

co ul d es ta bl is h st an di ng by a l l e g i n g “an in te nt io n to en ga ge in a co ur se of co nd uc t

arg ua bl y affe ct ed wit h a co ns ti tu ti on al in te res t, bu t pr os cri be d by a st at ut e, an d th ere

ex is ts a cred ib le th r e a t o f p ro se cu ti on th ereu nd er.” Ba bb it t v. Fa rm Wo rk er

s , 4 42

U.S. 2 89 , 2 98 (1 97 9) . Seco nd , MFA can est ab li sh st an di ng by al le gi ng th at it se lfcen so red

. 28 1 Car e Co m m

. , 63 8 F.3d at 62 7. “ [A] Fi rs t Am en dm en t pl ai nt iff who

face s a cred ib le th reat of fu tu re pr os ecu ti on su ffer s fro m an on go in g in jury res ul ti ng

fro m th e st at ut e’s ch il li ng ef fe ct on hi s de si re to ex erci se hi s Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht s.”

Wa rd

, 32 1 F.3 d at 12 67 (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d) (em ph as is in or ig in al )). In de ed

,

“ whe n th ere is a da ng er of ch il li ng free sp eech

, th e co n c e r n t ha t co ns ti tu ti on al

-5

-ad

jud ic at io n be av oi de d whe ne ve r po ss ib le m ay be ou twei gh ed by so ci et y ’s in te res t

in ha vi ng th e st at ut e ch al le ng ed .” Secr et ar y o f St at e o f Md . v. J os ep h H. Mun so n

Co

. , 46 7 U.S. 94 7, 95 6 (1 98 4) (ap pl y in g th is pr in ci pl e to th e pr ud en ti al co nc ern wit h

th ird -p art y st an di ng ), ci te d by Co ok se y v. Fut re ll

, 72 1 F.3 d 22 6, 23 5 (4 th Ci r. 20 13 )
(“ The le ni en cy of Fi rs t Am en dm en t st an di ng m an ife st s it se lf m os t co m m on ly in th e

do ct rin e’s fir st el em en t: in jury-in -fac t.”)

. Se e a ls o Ar iz on a R ig ht to Life Pol it ic al

Act io n Co m m it

te e v. Ba yl es s , 32 0 F

. 3 d 1 0 0 2, 10 06 (9 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (“ [W] he n th e

th reat en ed en fo rcem en t effo rt im pl ic at es Fi rs t Am en dm e n t r i g ht s, th e in qu iry ti lt s

dr am at ic al ly towar d a fin di ng of s ta nd in g.” ).

In it s ve rif

ie d co m pl ai nt

, M F A sa y s it en ga ge d in se lf- cen so rs hi p to co m pl y

wit h se ct io n 13 0.0 11 (8 ). Fo r 11 da y s— fro m fo rm a t i o n un ti l th e en try of th e

te m po rary res tra in in g or de r—M FA di d no t rece iv e co nt rib ut i o n s or m ak e

ex pe nd it ur es

. MFA’s tre as ur er swe ars he “ pr oh ib it ed an y ag en t of th e or ga ni zat io n

fro m so li ci ti ng an d/ or acce pt in g co nt rib ut io ns or pl ed ge s fr om an y co rp or at e en ti ty

ba se d on th e pr oh ib it io ns fo un d in Sect io n 1 3 0

. 0 1 1

. . . of th e Mi ss ou ri Rev is ed

St at ut es .” And

, th e v e r i f i e d co m pl ai nt ad ds th at “ [b ]ut fo r th e th irt y -d ay bl ack ou t

pe rio d

. . . an d th e su bs ta nt ia l li ke li ho od o f b ei ng su bjec te d to a cri m in al

pr os ecu ti on ,” MFA wou ld ha ve “ im m ed ia te ly [s ou gh t] to rai se an d ex pe nd fu nd s in

su pp or t o f Pro po si ti on 10 .”

In an al y zi ng a cl ai m of st an di ng th ro ug h se lf- cens or shi p, “ [t ] he re le va nt inq uir y

is whe th er a pa rty’ s de ci si on to ch il l hi s sp eech in li gh t of th e ch al le ng ed st at ut e was ‘objec ti ve ly reas on ab le .’ ” 28 1 Ca re Co m m

. , 63 8 F.3 d at 62 7. Eve n whe n co m pl ai nt s

ag ai ns t pl ai nt iff

s do no t re a c h “t h e cri m in al st ag e an d no cri m in al pr os ecu ti on was

ev er th reat en ed

, no n- cri m in al co nse que nc es co nt em pl at ed by a ch al le ng ed st at ut e can

al so co nt rib ut e to th e ob jecti ve reas on a b l e n e s s of al le ge d ch il l.” Id

. at 63 0. By

Mi ss ou ri la w, “ [a]ny pe rs on who kno win gl y acce pt s or m ak es a co nt rib ut io n or m ak es

an e x p e n d i t u r e in vi ol at io n of an y pr ov is io n of th is ch ap te r [1 30 ]

. . . sh al l be he ld

li ab le to th e st at e in ci vi l pe na lt ie s in an am ou nt eq ua l to an y su ch co nt r i b u t i o n o r

-6

-ex pe nd it ur e.” § 1 30 .07 2 (em ph as is ad de d)

. And , MEC’s ve rif ie d a ns wer co nf

irms

it s po li cy to im

po se a fee. In li gh t of th e st at ut e’s pl ai n la ng ua ge an d t h e MEC’s

st at ed po li cy , MFA’s se lf- cen so rs hi p i s o bjec ti ve ly reaso na bl e. Cf

. Nat io na l Ri gh t

to Life Pol

it ic al Act io n Co m m

. v. Co nno r , 32 3 F.3 d 68 4, 69 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (“ The re

is no di sp ut e ov er [th e co m m it te e’s] st an di ng to ch al le ng e se ct io n 13 0.0 11 (1 0) ; [th e

co m m it te e] cl earl y fal ls wit hi n th e st at ut e’s de fin it io n of a ‘con ti nu in g co m m it te e.’”).

MFA ha s Arti cl e III st an di ng t o c h a ll en ge se ct io n 13 0.0 11 (8 ) on Fi rs t

Am en dm en t g ro un ds

.

III.

Tho ug h th e 20 14 el ect io n ha s pa ss ed

, th is cas e is no t m oo t. Fo r m oo tn es s, th e

“ req ui si te pe r s o n a l in te res t th at m us t ex is t at th e co m

m en cem en t of th e li ti ga ti on (s ta nd in g) m

us t co nt in ue th ro ug ho ut it s ex is te nc e (m oo tn es s)

. ” Fr ie nd s of th e Ea rt h,

In c. v. Lai dl

aw Envt l. Ser vs

. (TOC), In c. , 52 8 U.S. 16 7, 17 0 (2 00 0)

. MFA vi ol at ed

th e fo rm at io n de ad li ne by fo rm in g wit hi n th irt y da y s of el ect io n. Fo r th is

, th e MEC

can im po se a fee. S e e § 10 5.9 61 .4(6 )

. Tha t it ha s no t y et do ne so is irr el ev an t

be cau se th e MEC’s in act io n “ is no t pe rm an en t.” Se e Los Ang el es v. Lyo ns , 46 1 U.S.

95

, 10 1 (1 98 3) (h ol di ng th at a m or at or iu m on th e us e of ch ok e ho ld s by th e po li ce

de pa rtment di d no t m oo t a cas e ch al le ng in g th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of th e us e of ch ok e

ho ld s be cau se “ [i]nt erv en in g ev en ts ha ve no t irr ev oc ab ly erad ic at ed th e effe ct s of th e

al le ge d vi ol at io n” ) (in te r n a l qu ot at io ns om it te d) ). Cf

. Kno x v. Ser vi ce Em

pl oy ees , 13 2 S. Ct

. 22 77

, 22 87 (2 01 2) (“ The vo lu nt ary ces sa ti on of ch al le ng ed co nd uc t do es

no t or di na ril y ren de r a cas e m oo t be cau se a di sm is sa l fo r mo o t n e s s wou ld pe rm it

res um pt io n of th e ch al le ng ed co nd uc t as so on as th e cas e is di sm is se d.” ). MEC can

at an y ti m e im

pl em en t it s po li cy a n d a s s e s s th e fee fo r vi ol at io n of th e fo rm at io n

de ad li ne in se ct io n 13 0.0 11 (8 ). The MEC an d MFA co nt in ue to ha ve “ ad ve rs e le ga l

in te res ts

, of su ffi ci en t im m ed ia cy an d real it y to warra nt th e is su an ce of a de cl arat or y jud gm en t.” Gol

de n , 39 4 U.S. at 10 8.

-7

-Alt ern at iv el y , MFA in vo ke s th e ex cep ti on to m oo tn es s fo r “ cap ab le of

rep et it io n y et ev ad in g rev ie w.” Thi s ex cep ti on wil l “ res cu e an ot he rwis e m oo t cl ai m

if (1 ) th e ch al le ng ed co nd uc t is of to o sh or t a du rat io n to be li ti ga te d fu ll y pr io r to it s

ces sa ti on or ex pi rat io n, an d (2 ) th ere is a reas on ab le ex pe ct at i o n t h a t th e sa m e

co m pl ai ni ng pa rty wil l be su bjec t to th e sa m e act io n a g a i n

. ” Co nno r , 32 3 F.3 d at

69 1. The qu es ti on is “ whe th er th e co nt ro ve rs y was ca pa bl e of rep et it io n an d no t

. . . whe th er th e cl ai m an t ha d de m on st rat ed th at a r ecu rren ce of th e di sp ut e was m or e

p r ob ab le th an no t.” Ho ni g v. Doe

, 48 4 U.S. 30 5, 31 8 n.6 (1 98 8) (em ph as is in

or ig in al ).

“ Elec ti on is su es are am on g th os e m os t freq ue nt ly sa ve d fro m m oo tn es s by th is

ex cep ti on .” Co nno r , 32 3 F.3 d at 69 1 (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. Alt ho ug h MFA

te rm in at ed by op er at io n of la w as a cam pa ig n co m

m it te e fo r th e 20 14 el ect io n, it st il l

ex is ts as a s e c t io n 52 7 po li ti cal or ga ni zat io n an d a no np ro fit co rp or at io n in go od

st an di ng in Mi ss ou ri. Its co rp or at e pu rp os e is th e “ ed u c a t i o n of ge ne ral pu bl ic on

is su es co nc ern in g f

i s c a l res po ns ib il it y .” Cf

. Zwic kl er , 39 4 U.S. at 10 9 (fi nd in g no

“ cas e or co nt ro ve rs y ” whe re th e pl ai nt iff ’s “ so le co nc ern was li te rat ur e rel at in g to th e

Co ng res sm an ” who ha d ta ke n a po si ti on in th e jud ic ia ry an d “ it w as m os t un li ke ly

th at th e Co ng res sm an wou ld ag ai n be a can di da te fo r Co ng res s” ), di st in gu is he d by

Sus an B. Ant

ho ny Lis t v. Dri eha us , 13 4 S. Ct

. 23 34

, 23 44 (2 01 4) (fi nd in g st an di ng

fo r ad vo cacy or ga n i z a t i on s be cau se th ei r fo cu s was on br oa de r is su es “ no t on th e

vo ti ng reco rd of a si ng le can di da te ”). Po st -el ect io n, in Ans wer to th e Co ur t’s Ord er

to Sh ow Cau se , MFA al le ge d it “ wil l on ce ag ai n be ha rm ed by [s ect io n 13 0.0 11 (8 )]

. . . if an d whe n it ch oo se s to su pp or t or op po se th e qu al ifi cat io n an d pa ss ag e of on e

or m or e p art ic ul ar bal lo t m eas ur es in fu tu re elect io ns .” “ [A]ny nu m be r of ev en ts

. .

. m ig ht cau se [th e co m

m it te e] t o b e c o me i n vo lv ed in a st at e race wit hi n th irt y da y s

of an el ect io n.” Se e id

. at 69 2 (ci ti ng a can di da te ’s de at h, po ll s th at “ m ig ht rev eal a

cl os er race th an ex pe ct ed ,” ne w i n f or m at io n “ or effe ct iv e ad ve rti si ng [th at ] co ul d

dr as ti cal ly al te r pu bl ic op in io n in th e week s be fo re an el ect io n,” an d tre nd s “ in ot he r

race s [th at ] co ul d el ev at e th e im po rta nc e of r a c e s wit h le ss cl ear ou tc om es ”). To

-8

-pa rti ci pa te in fu tu re el ect io ns , M FA m us t re-f or m as a cam

pa ig n c om m it te e. And

, 4

it m us t face th e sp ect er of se ct io n 13 0.0 11 ’s fo rm at io n de ad li ne an d MEC’s po li ci es

on fees

. Cf

. Sup er Tir e Eng ’g Co . v . M cCo rk le , 4 16 U.S. 1 15 , 1 22 (1 97 4) (“ [T]he

ch al le ng ed go ve rn m en ta l act iv it y in th e pr es en t cas e is no t co nt in ge nt

, ha s no t

ev ap or at ed or di sa pp eare d, an d, by it s co nt in ui ng an d br oo di ng pr es en ce, cas ts wha t

m ay well be a su bs ta nt ia l ad ve rs e effe ct on th e in te res ts of th e pe ti ti on in g pa rti es .”),

as co ns tr ue d in Wei ns te in v. Br ad fo rd

, 42 3 U.S. 14 7, 14 8 (1 97 5) (“ Eve n th ou gh th e

pa rti cu la r st rik e whi ch ha d be en th e oc cas io n fo r th e fil in g of th e la wsu it was

te rm in at ed

, th e Co ur t he ld th at it was en ou gh th at th e pe ti ti on er em pl oyer sh owe d ‘the

ex i st en ce of an im m ed ia te an d de fin it e go ve rn m en ta l act io n or po li cy th at ha s

ad ve rs el y affe ct ed an d c on ti nu es to affec t a p res en t i nt eres t’”).

The di st ric t co ur t d id no t er r in co nc lu di ng th at th e cas e is no t m oo t.

IV.

The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d MFA’s cl ai m s as no t rip e. MFA m ai nt ai ns th at it s

ch al le ng e to th e 30 -d ay fo rm at io n de ad li ne is rip e fo r rev ie w. Ri pe ne ss is rev ie wed

de no vo

. Par ri

sh v. Dayt on , 76 1 F .3d 87 3, 8 75 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4)

.

The rip en es s do ct rin e pr ev en ts co ur ts “ th r o u g h av oi da nc e of pr em at ur e

ad jud i c a t i o n, fro m en ta ng li ng th em se lv es in ab st ract di sa gr eem en ts ov er

ad m in is tra ti ve po li ci es , an d al so [p ro te ct s] th e ag en ci es fro m jud ic ia l in te rfer en ce

un ti l an ad m in is tra ti ve de ci si on ha s be en fo rm al iz ed an d it s effe ct s fel t in a co nc ret e

way by th e ch al le ng in g par ti es .” Co nno r , 32 3 F.3d at 69 2, qu ot in g Ab bo tt Lab s. v.

The MEC st res se s Co nn or ’s refe ren ce to th is co nt in ui ng -co m m it te e pr ov is io n 4

as a “ reg is tra ti on de a d l i n e

. ” S e e Co nno r , 32 3 F.3 d at 69 3. MFA be li ev es th at th e si m il ar cam

pa ig n- co m

m it te e pr ov is io n is a “ fo rm at io n de a d l i n e .” The se la be ls

su m m ari ze th e pa rti es ’ co nt ras ti ng vi ews of th e “co mm i t t ee sh al l be fo rm ed ”
de ad li ne —an is su e fo r co ns id erat io n o n t he m eri ts

.

-9

-Gar dn er , 38 7 U.S. 13 6, 14 8- 49 (1 96 7)

. To de ci de rip en es s, co ur ts co ns id er: “ (1 ) th e

ha rd sh ip to th e pl ai nt iff cau se d by de la y ed rev ie w; (2 ) t h e e x te nt to whi ch jud ic ia l

in te rv en ti on w o u l d in te rfer e wit h ad m in is tra ti ve act io n; an d (3 ) whe th er th e co ur t

wou ld be ne fit fro m fu rth er fact ua l de ve lo pm en t.” Id

. at 69 2- 93

. “ The to uc hs to ne of

a rip en es s in qu iry is whe th er th e ha rm as se rte d ha s m at ur ed en ou gh to wa r r an t jud ic ia l i nt erv en ti on .” Par ri sh , 76 1 F .3d at 8 75

.

In Co nn or , th is co ur t ad dr es se d t he st at ut e fo r co nt in ui ng co m m it te es , whi ch

th en im po se d a 30 -d a y f

o r mat i on de ad li ne

. Co nno r , 32 3 F.3 d at 69 3, ci ti ng § 13 0.0 11 (1 0) RSMo 20 00 (3 0- da y ti m e-l im it

, la te r am en de d to 60 da y s)

. Thi s co ur t

co nc lu de d th at a co nt in ui ng c om m it te e’s cl ai m was no t rip e be cau se it pr es en te d

n e i t h e r e v i de nc e “ on th e is su e of fees ” no r pu rs ue d an ad vi so ry op in io n fro m th e

MEC or a te m

po rary res tra in in g or de r. Id

. at 69 3- 94

. Thi s co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at ho w

th e MEC ha nd le s th e f

e es fo r fai li ng to fil e be fo re th e 30 -d ay win do w ha s a

si gn ifi can t im

pa ct “ on ou r co ns ti tu ti on al sc ru ti ny of se ct io n 13 0.0 11 (1 0) .” Id

. at 69 3.

W it ho ut fee ev id en ce or a req ue st fo r an ad vi so ry op in io n or a res tra in in g or de r, th e

co m m it te e “ m ay , in fact

, di sc ov er th at no real th reat of en fo rcem en t ex is ts at al l.” Id

.

“ A cl ai m is no t rip e fo r ad

jud ic at io n if it res ts up on ‘con ti ng en t fu tu re ev en ts th at m ay

no t oc cu r as an ti ci pa te d, or in de ed m ay no t oc cu r at al l.’” I d

. , qu ot in g Tex as v.

Unit ed Sta te s , 52 3 U.S. 2 96 , 30 0 (1 99 8)

.

Elev en y ears la te r, in 20 14

, MFA ch al le ng ed se ct io n 13 0.0 11 (8 ), whi ch ha s a

fo rm at io n de ad li ne si m il ar to th at in Co nn or

. Se e § 13 0.0 11 (1 0) RSMo 20 00 (3 0- da y

ti m e li m it

, la te r am en de d to 60 da y s) (s ta ti ng a co nt in ui ng co m m it te e “ sh al l be fo rm ed

n o l a te r th an th irt y da y s pr io r to th e el ect io n fo r whi ch th e co m m it te e rece i v e s

co nt rib ut io ns or m ak es ex pe nd it ur es .”). Unl ik e th e co m m it te e in Co nn or , MFA

pr es en te d ev id en ce of th e MEC im po si ng fees on co m

m it te es fo r no t co m

pl y in g wit h

th e fo rm at io n de ad li ne

. In on e c o n s e n t o r de r, th e MEC im po se d a $1 ,00 0 fee on a

co nt in ui ng co m

m it te e, li st in g as a se pa rat e vi ol at io n “ fai li ng to fo rm as a co m m it te e

m or e th an si xt y da y s pr io r to th e Apr il 20 13 el ect io n” (in ad di ti on to no t ti m el y fil in g

-1 0-an or ga ni zat io na l s t at em en t). Mi ss ou ri Et hi cs Co m m ’n v. Tax

pa yer Pro te ct

io n

PA C

, N o

. 1 3 E0 6 0 ( F e b

. 1 8

, 2 0 1 4 ) ( C o n s e n t O r d e r )

, a v a i l a b l e a t

ht tp :/ /m ec.m o.g ov /S can ne d/ Cas ed oc sP DF/1 86 69 .pd f. In th e se co nd co ns en t ord er,

th e MEC im

po se d a $3 ,10 0 f

e e on a co nt in ui ng co m m it te e fo r “ fo rm in g as a

co m m it te e le ss th an si xt y da y s pr io r to an el ect io n” (am on g ot he r vi ol at io ns ). 5

Mi ss ou ri Et hi cs Co m m ’n v

. W

e s t

, No. 14 E09 1 (Oct

. 8, 20 14 ) (Co ns en t Ord er),

av ail abl e at htt p:/ /m ec

. m o. gov/ Sc an

ne d/C as ed ocsP D F/ 2211 0. pdf

. T he ME C’ s pol ic y

on im po si ng fees fo r n o t mee t in g th e fo rm at io n de ad li ne is cl ear, an d th e reco rd is

no w ad eq ua te ly de ve lo pe d. Se e Co nno r , 32 3 F.3 d at 69 3 (wh e r e t h e co m m it te e

pr es en te d n o e vi de nc e “ on th e is su e o f fees ”).

The to uc hs to ne of rip en es s is t h e ha rm as se rte d by MFA. MFA as se rts th e

ha rm of se lf- cen so rs hi p, ba se d on it s co m pl ia nc e wit h se ct io n 13 0.0 11 (8 ). Se e

Ar iz on a R ig ht

to Life Pol

it ic al Act io n Co m m

. , 3 20 F.3 d at 10 07 n.6 (h ol di ng “ ou r

co nc lu si on th at ARLPAC ha s su ffer ed a c t u al ha rm di sp en se s wit h an y rip en es s

co nc ern s.”) . MFA’s cas e is rip e fo r rev ie w.

* * * * * * *

The di sm is sa l o f MFA’s cl ai m s is rev ers ed

, an d th e cas e rem an de d fo r

pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

In it s v eri fie d a ns wer, th e MEC s ay s t ha t i t n eg ot ia te s p ay m en t o f a fee wit h 5

th e tre as ur er of a cam

pa ig n co m

m it te e. The co ns en t or de rs sh ow th at th e M EC

ne go ti at es pa y m en t of pa rt of th e fee (ab ou t 10 pe rcen t). The rem ai nd er of th e fee is
th en st ay ed un ti l “ an y fu rth er vi ol at io n of th e cam pa ig n fin an ce la ws un de r Ch ap te r 13 0, RS Mo , wit hi n t he two -y ear p eri od fro m th e d at e o f th is ord er . . . .”

-1 1-ARNOLD, Circu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

The 20 14 el ect io n ha s co m e an d go ne , MFA's el ect io n co m m it te e ha s

di ss ol ve d, an d t he ba ll ot m eas ur e fo r whi ch MFA's el ect io n co m m it te e was crea te d

to su pp or t ha s pa ss ed

. MFA an d th e co ur t no ne th el es s m ai nt ai n th at MFA ha s carr ie d

it s bu rd en to de m on st rat e an on g o in g Arti cl e III cas e or co nt ro ve rs y

. Bec au se I

be li ev e th at th is cas e is m oo t, th at it s ch al le ng es to fu tu re di sp ut es are un rip e, an d th at

MFA l ack s s ta nd in g t o o bt ai n p ro sp ect iv e eq ui ta bl e rel ie f, I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t.

Arti cl e III req ui res th at a pl ai nt iff 's pe rs on al i n t eres t in th e li ti ga ti on m us t

co nt in ue th ro ug ho ut th e li fe o f th e cas e, ot he rwis e th e cas e is m oo t. Se e Na t'l Rig ht

to Li fe Pol it ic al Acti on Co mm. v. Co nn or , 32 3 F.3 d 68 4, 69 1 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 0 3 )

. The

co ur t dr aws on Co nn or to ho ld th at MFA's cl ai m s were no t m oo t be cau se th ey were

cap ab le of rep et it io n y et wou ld ev ad e rev ie w. C la im s are "ca pa bl e of rep et it io n y et

ev ad i n g r e vi ew" on ly whe n "t he re is a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n th at th e sa m e

co m pl ai ni ng pa rty wil l be su bjec t to th e sa m e act io n a g a i n." Id

. MFA, ho wev er,

pr ov id es no ev id en ce th at it wil l pa rti ci pa te in a fu tu re el ect io n, m uc h les s creat e an

el ect io n co m

m it te e wit hi n 30 da y s of on e. The ve ry na tu re of th e el ect io n co m m it te e

in Co nn or , a co nt in uin g co m m itt ee , sugg es te d fu tur e pa rti ci pa ti on be cau se co nt in ui ng

co m m it te es do no t te rm in at e by op erat io n of la w. Se e Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 13 0.0 11 (1 0)

. Su ch a co m

m it te e al so te nd s to fo cu s on is su es th at recu r in di ffer en t el ect io ns , su ch

as th e p ro -li fe co nc ern s o f th e co m m it te e in Co nn or

.

MFA's el ect io n co m

m it te e, ho wev er, is a cam

pa ig n co m

m it te e th at

, as th e co ur t

it se lf reco gn iz es , di ss ol ve d by op erat io n of la w sh or tl y aft er th e 20 14 el ect io n. Se e

Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 13 0.0 11 (8 ). It ad vo cat ed (s uc ces sf ul ly) fo r th e pa ss ag e of a

pa rti c u l a r ba ll ot m eas ur e an d fil ed a te rm in at io n st at em en t. Unl ik e th e reco rd in

C o n n o r , th e reco rd he re co nt ai ns no ev id en ce th at th e co m m it te e at is su e wi l l

co nt in ue to op erat e or reg en erat e to pa rti ci pa te in fu tu re el ect io ns , no r is th ere

ev id en ce tha t th e ba ll ot m eas ur e fo r whi ch MFA su cces sf ul ly ad vo cat ed wil l be the

-1 2-su bjec t of a fu tu re elect io n. Becau se MFA did no t "m ak e a reas on ab le sh owi ng th at

[it ] wil l ag ai n be su bjec te d to th e al le ge d il le ga li ty," Ci ty of Lo s Ang el es v. Lyo ns , 46 1

U.S. 9 5, 10 9 (1 98 3) , i ts cl ai m s are no t cap ab le of rep et it io n y et ev ad in g re vi ew. So

th ey are m oo t.

I res pe ct fu ll y di sa gr ee wit h th e co ur t's rel ia nc e on MFA's a l l e ga ti on th at th e

f or m at io n req ui rem en t wil l ha rm MFA "i f an d whe n it ch oo se s to " pa rti ci pa t e i n

an ot he r el ect io n. Not on ly is th e al le ga ti on no t ev id en ce, th is "s om e d a y " in te nt io n

is m uc h to o sp ecu la ti ve to ov erco m e m oo tn es s. Se e Bern be ck v. Gal e , No. 15 -1 98 3,

20 16 W L 37 69 48 1, at *3 n.3 (8 th Ci r. Ju ly 14

, 20 16 ). The co ur t's rel ia nc e on Su pe r

Ti re Eng in eer in g Co

. v. McCo rk le

, 41 6 U.S. 11 5 (1 97 4)

, is al so m is pl aced

. Su pe r Ti re

in vo lv ed a st at e la w th at m ad e st rik in g work ers el ig ib le fo r welf are pr og ram s. Eve n

th ou gh th e st rik e in qu es ti on en de d whi le t h e l i t i g a t io n was pe nd in g, th e st at e la w

co nt in ue d to affe ct th e i n t e r e s ts of th e pa rti es be cau se , as th e Su pr em e Co ur t

ex pl ai ne d on e y ear aft er de ci di ng Su pe r Ti re , th e pa rti es were en ga ge d in "cycli cal ly

recu rri ng ba rg ai ni ng ," W

ei ns te in v. Bra df

or d

, 42 3 U.S. 14 7, 14 8 (1 97 5) (p er cu ria m ),

an d th e la w's fav o r ab le effe ct on th e em pl oyees al te red th e pa rti es ' ba rg ai ni ng

po si ti on s. Se e S

up er Ti re , 4 16 U.S. a t 12 4. The st at e la w t he refo re ha d an on go in g,

co nt in uo us , an d cert ai n effe ct

. Thi s cas e m or e cl os el y res em bl es W ei ns te in

, whe re th e

Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at a f o r m er st at e pr is on er's ch al le ng e to th e st at e's pa ro le

pr oc ed ur es was m oo t be cau se he ha d be en rel eas ed fro m pr is on an d th us n o lo ng er

ha d a pr es en t in te res t in pa ro le po li ci es

. Id

. at 14 7– 48

. By pr ov id in g no ev id en ce of

an in te nt to reg en erat e fo r fu tu re el ect io ns , MFA ha s no t de m on st rat ed a pr es en tl y

affe ct ed in te res t.

I su gg es t fu rth er th at th e co ur t errs by c o n c l u d i ng th at MFA's cl ai m s are no t

m oo t be cau se th e MEC ha s th us far o nl y de cl in ed to pe na li ze MFA. It is un cl ear to

m e ho w t he MEC co ul d pe na li ze a c am pa ig n c om m it te e lo ng aft er i t ha s di ss ol ve d,

an d th e two co ns en t or de rs th at th e co ur t id en ti fie s as sh owi ng an im m in en t th reat of

a pe na lt y in vo lv e pe na lt ie s le vi ed ag ai ns t co nt in ui ng co m m it te es , whi ch do no t

-1 3-di ss ol ve by op erat io n of la w. Not hi n g in th e reco rd sh ows th at MEC act ua ll y

pe na li zes de fu nc t ca m

pa ig n c om m it te es for lat e fo rm at io n o r su gg es ts ho w it co ul d

ev en do so

.

MFA's cl ai m s are al so un rip e. Ri pe ne ss req ui res an ex am in at io n of th e fit ne ss

of is su es fo r jud ic ia l de te rm in at io n an d th e ha rd sh ip to th e pa rti es whe n th e de ci si on

of a cas e is de f

e r r e d

. Par ri sh v. Day to n , 76 1 F.3 d 87 3, 87 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). The

f i t n e s s co ns id erat io n "s afeg ua rd s ag ai ns t jud ic ia l rev ie w of hypo th et ic al o r

sp ecu la ti ve di sa gr eem en ts ," an d th e ha rd sh ip co ns id erat io n d e a l s wit h whe th er

de la y ed rev ie w wou ld wor k a si gn ifi can t pr act ic al ha rm on th e pl ai nt iff

. Id

. Thi s ha rm

m us t be "ce rta in ly im

pe nd in g." Id

. at 87 6. Cl ai m s are no t ri p e w h e n t he y res t on

"co nt in ge nt fu tu re ev en ts th at m ay no t oc cu r as an ti ci pa te d, or in de ed m ay no t oc cu r

at all ." Id

. at 8 75 –7 6.

MFA's cl ai m s fo r pr os pe ct iv e eq ui ta bl e rel ie f de pe nd en ti rel y on sp ecu la ti on

. Dela y ed rev ie w wil l no t ha rm MFA be cau se it ha s gi ve n no ev id en ce of an in te nt to

r e g en erat e it s el ect io n co m m it te e fo r fu tu re el ect io ns

. In no se ns e is an y in ju r y

"ce rt a i n l y i m

pe nd in g." Unl ik e 28 1 Ca re Co mmit te e v. Arn es on , 63 8 F.3 d 62 1, 63 1
(8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), up on whi ch th e co ur t rel ie s, MFA wil l no t su ffer ha rm "at de fin ed

po in ts " in th e fu tu re b e c a u s e i t ha s pr ov id ed no ev id en ce of an in te nt to act in th e

f u t u re. And th e fact th at it m ay ha ve be en ha rm ed pr ev io us ly do es no t li cen se it t o

se ek pr os pe ct iv e eq ui ta bl e rel ie f ad in fin it um , an d th e co ur t errs in ap pa ren tl y

co nc lu di ng ot he rwis e.

In Gol de n v. Zwi ckl er , th e Su pr e me Co ur t co nf ro nt ed a Fi rs t Am en dm en t

ch al le ng e to a New Yor k la w ba rri ng d i s t r i b ut io n of an on y m ou s li te rat ur e in

c on ne ct io n wit h an el ect io n cam pa ig n. 39 4 U.S. 10 3, 10 4– 05 (1 96 9)

. The pl ai n t i f f

was co nv ic te d ( a n d th us al read y ha rm ed ) un de r th e la w fo r di st rib ut in g li te rat ur e

ta rg et in g a pa r t i c u l a r Co ng res sm an ru nn in g fo r re-e le ct io n in 19 64

. The Fi rs t

Am en dm en t ch al le ng e, fil ed aft er th e 19 64 el ect io n an d th e rev ers al of th e pl ai nt iff 's

-1 4-co nv ic ti on , al le ge d th at th e sa m e Co ng res sm an wou ld ru n in 19 66

, th at he ha d be en

a p ol it ic al fig ur e fo r m an y y ears , an d th at th e pl ai nt iff in te nd ed to co nt in u e

di st rib ut in g su ch li te rat ur e. Afte r th e cas e was fil ed

, th e Co ng res sm an acce pt ed a

po si ti on in th e New Yor k jud ic ia ry , so th e Co ur t con cl ud ed th at it was un li ke ly th at

th e Co ng res sm an wou ld se ek re-e le ct io n, pr ec l ud in g a fin di ng th at th ere was

su ffi ci en t im m ed ia cy an d real it y , so th e Co ur t la ck ed Arti cl e III juri sd ic ti on

. Bec au se ,

m or eo ve r, th ere was no up co m in g re -el ect io n cam pa ig n, " it was wh ol ly con jectu ral

th at an ot he r oc cas io n m ig ht ari se whe n [p la in ti ff] m ig ht be pr os ecu te d fo r dis tr ibu ti ng

th e ha nd bi ll s refe rred to i n t he co m pl ai nt ," an d hi s as se rti on th at th e fo rm er

Co ng res sm an co ul d ru n ag ai n was "h ard ly a su bs ti tu te fo r ev id en ce th at th is is a

pr ospe ct of 'im m ed ia cy an d real it y .'" Co ns ti tu ti on al qu es ti on s, ev en Fi rs t Am en dm en t

on es , m us t em an at e fro m a sp eci fic l i v e g rie va nc e. Id

. at 10 9– 10

. The Co ur t's

ob se rv at io ns in Gol de n ap pl y he re wi th eq ua l fo rce.

Rel at ed ly, MFA di d no t pr ov e an act ua l, im m in en t in jury th at is no t co njec tu ral

or hypo th et ic al

, Mo. Rou nd ta bl e fo r Li fe v. Ca rn ah an , 67 6 F.3 d 66 5, 6 7 2 ( 8 t h C ir.

20 12 ), so it la ck s st an di ng

. To ha ve st an di ng to rai se a Fi rs t Am en dm en t ch al le ng e

to a st at e st at ut e, "t he pl ai nt iff ne ed s on ly to es ta bl is h th at he wou ld li ke to en ga ge in

arg ua bl y pr ot ect ed sp eech

, bu t" th e st at ut e in qu es ti on si gn ifi can tl y di sc ou rag es hi m

f r o m d o in g so

. 28 1 Ca re Co mm. , 63 8 F.3 d at 62 7. The de ci si on to refr ai n fro m

sp eak in g in li gh t of th e rel ev an t st at ut e m us t be ob jecti ve ly reas on a b l e , whi ch

req ui res th e pl ai nt iff to de mo n st rat e "an in te nt io n to en ga ge in a co ur se of co nd uc t

a r g u a b l y a ffec te d wit h a co ns ti tu ti on al in te res t, bu t pr os cri be d by [t he ] st at ut e, a n d

th ere e xi st s a c red ib le th reat of p ro se cu ti on ." Id

.

The co ur t co nc lu de s th at MFA was ha rm ed by it s se lf- cen so rs hi p. It se em s to

m e th at MFA's se lf- im

po se d si le nc e, if an y , was no t ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le

. W e

reco gn iz ed in Co nn or , whe n co ns tru in g a vi rtu al ly id en ti cal fo rm at io n req ui rem en t,

th at th e req ui rem en t "d oe s no t, on it s face

, li m it is su e or ex pr es s ad vo cacy." Co nn or , 32 3 F.3 d at 69 3. In fact

, MFA's pr op os ed co ns tru ct io n of th e rel ev an t st at ut e bo rd ers

-1 5-on th e fan ci fu l. Life is ris ky, pa rti cu la rly po li ti cal li fe, an d P r e s i d e n t Trum an 's

ap ho r i s m a b o ut th e he at an d th e ki tc he n su rel y ha s a sp eci al res on an ce in Mi ss ou ri

cam pa ig ns

. As Mr. Ju st ic e Card oz o rem ark ed in a di ffer en t bu t si m il ar co nt ex t, "t he

ti m or ou s m ay st ay at ho m e." Mur ph y v. St eep le ch as e Amus emen t Co

. , 25 0 N.Y. 47 9,

48 3, 16 6 N.E. 17 3, 17 4 (1 92 9)

. And MFA's se l f

- im po se d bl ack ou t do es no th in g to

av oi d a pe na lt y ; it co ul d ha ve be en as se ss ed a pe na lt y whe t h e r i t was act iv el y

sp eak in g or ke ep in g qu ie t: The ch al le ng ed po rti on of th e st at ut e co nc ern s on ly MFA's

fo rm at io n, so wha te ve r MFA di d (o r di d no t do ) aft er it fo rm ed do es no t he lp res ol ve

th e st an di ng in qu iry.

Fina ll y , "[t ]o ha ve Arti cl e III st an di ng to se ek pr os pe ct iv e rel ie f, pl ai nt iff s m ust

sh ow th ey are li ke ly to su ffer fu tu re in jury th at wil l be rem ed ie d by th e rel ie f so ug ht ."

Eli za be th M. v. Mon te ne

z , 45 8 F.3 d 77 9, 78 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). "Pa st ex po su re to il le ga l

co nd uc t" wil l n ot su ffi ce ab se nt pr es en t ad ve rs e eff ect s. Id

. Pas t wro ng s ar e m erel y

ev id en ce sh owi ng th e ex is te nc e of a real an d im m ed ia te th reat of rep eat ed in jury. As

wit h th e ch ok eh ol ds in Lyo ns , MFA ha s no t sh own a rea l a n d i m m ed ia te th reat of

f ut ur e ha rm th at jus ti fie s pr os pe ct iv e rel ie f. "Ab se nt a su ffi ci en t li ke li ho od th at [i t ]

wil l ag ai n be wro ng ed in a si m il ar way , [ MFA] i s no m or e en ti tl ed to an in jun ct io n

th an an y ot he r ci ti z e n of [Mi ss ou ri]." Lyo ns , 46 1 U.S. at 11 1. If MFA wan ts to

vi nd ic at e wha t ha pp en ed t o i t in 20 14

, a cl ai m fo r da m ag es wou ld be m or e

ap pr op ria te

. Se e id

. at 1 05 , 11 1.

The co ur t gi ve s sh or t sh rif t to MFA's lac k o f pl an s fo r pa rti ci pa ti ng in fut ur e

el ect io ns

. Si nc e MFA ha s no t de m on st rat ed th e ex is te nc e of a n A r t i c le III cas e or

co nt ro ve rs y , I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t fro m th e co ur t's op in io n an d wou l d a f fir m th e

di st ric t co ur t's jud gm en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 6-