## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1625

___________ Republican Party of Minnesota, * an association; Indian Asian * American Republicans of * Minnesota; Republican Seniors, * an association; Young Republican * League of Minnesota, a Minnesota * nonprofit corporation; Minnesota * College Republicans, an association, * Gregory F. Wersal, individually; * Cheryl L. Wersal, individually; * Mark E. Wersal, individually; * Corwin C. Hulbert, individually; * Campaign for Justice, an association; * Minnesota African American Council, * an association; Muslim Republicans, * an association, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Appellants, * District of Minnesota * v. * [UNPUBLISHED] * Verna Kelly, in her capacity as * Chairperson of the Minnesota Board * of Judicial Standards, or her successor; * Charles E. Lundberg, in his capacity as * Chair of the Minnesota Lawyers * Professional Responsibility Board, or * his successor; Edward J. Cleary, in his * capacity as Director of the Minnesota *-2-

Office of Lawyers Professional * Responsibility, or his successor, * * Appellees. * *

------------------------------- * * The Minnesota State Bar Association, * * Amicus on Behalf of Appellee. * * Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, * * Amicus on Behalf of Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 19, 1998 Filed: November 2, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM.
Gregory F. Wersal, a licensed Minne sota attorney and candidate for the position of Associ ate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, together with his campaig n committee, Campaign for Justice, his wife, Cheryl L. Wersal , his brother, Mark Wersal, one of his supporters, Corwin C. Hulbert, the Minnesota Republican Party (MRP), and associations affiliated with the MRP (collectively plaintiffs), appeal from an order ofTheHonorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District 1 of Minnesota. -3- the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denying their motion for 1 a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction in their action against the Chair of the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards, the Chair of the Minnesota Lawyer s Prof essional Responsibility Board, and the Director of the Office of Lawyer s Pr ofessionalResponsibility. Republican Party of Minnesota v. Kelly , No. 98-83 1 (D. Minn. Mar. 9, 1998) (memorandum opinion and order). Plaintiffs brought this civil action, and moved for injunctive relief, based upon the assertion that certain provisions of Canon 5 of the Minnesota Judicial Code, as amended o n December 23, 1997, violate their rights under the free speech, free association, and equal protection clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. Jurisdicti on was proper in the district court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Jurisdiction is proper in thi s court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Upon careful consideration of the record i n the present case and the arguments presented on appeal, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion i n denying plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunctio n underthe st andard set forth in Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C. L. Sys., Inc. , 640 F.2d 10 9 (8th Cir. 198 1) (en banc). At this stage of the litigation, we express no opinion on the merits o f plaintiffs’ claims. The order of the district court is affirmed. See 8 Cir

. th R. 47B. BEAM, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
I dissent becau se the district court should have ordered a preliminary injunction on at least part of the claims asserted.-4-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.