542US2IC2Z 10-26-06 09:14:30 PAGES IC13PGT

OCTOBER TERM, 2003 1305

Opinion in Chambers

WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC. v. FEDERAL

ELECTION COMMISSION

on application for injunction

No. 04A194. Decided September 14, 2004

Applicant’s request for an injunction pending appeal barring the enforcement of § 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA)

is denied. Applicant contends that § 203—which bans corporations

from using general treasury funds to finance certain electioneering communications—violates the First Amendment as applied to its political

advertisements. An injunction pending appeal would be an extraordinary remedy, particularly when this Court recently held BCRA facially

constitutional, McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93,

189–210, and when a three-judge District Court unanimously rejected

applicant’s request for a preliminary injunction. The All Writs Act, the

only source of this Court’s authority to issue the instant injunction, is

to be used “ ‘ “sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances.” ’ ” Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479

U. S. 1312, 1313, (Scalia, J., in chambers). Applicant has not established that this extraordinary remedy is appropriate here.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.

Applicant Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., has requested I

grant an injunction pending appeal barring the enforcement

of § 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

(BCRA), 116 Stat. 91, 2 U. S. C. § 441b (2000 ed. and Supp.

II), which bars corporations from using general treasury

funds to finance electioneering communications as defined in

BCRA § 201. Applicant contends that § 203 violates the

First Amendment as applied to its political advertisements.

A three-judge District Court, convened pursuant to BCRA

§ 403(a)(1), denied applicant’s motion for a preliminary injunction and denied applicant’s motion for an injunction

pending appeal. I herewith deny the application for an injunction pending appeal.

An injunction pending appeal barring the enforcement of

an Act of Congress would be an extraordinary remedy, par-
542US2IC2H 10-26-06 09:14:30 PAGES IC13PGT

1306 WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC. v. FEDERAL

ELECTION COMM’N

Opinion in Chambers

ticularly when this Court recently held BCRA facially constitutional, McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S.

93, 189–210 (2003), and when a unanimous three-judge District Court rejected applicant’s request for a preliminary

injunction. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC,

507 U. S. 1301, 1302–1303 (1993) (Rehnquist, C. J., in chambers). The All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651(a), is the only

source of this Court’s authority to issue such an injunction.

That authority is to be used “ ‘ “sparingly and only in the

most critical and exigent circumstances.” ’ ” Ohio Citizens

for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U. S. 1312, 1313

(1986) (Scalia, J., in chambers) (quoting Fishman v. Schaffer, 429 U. S. 1325, 1326 (1976) (Marshall, J., in chambers)).

It is only appropriately exercised where (1) “necessary or

appropriate in aid of [our] jurisdictio[n],” 28 U. S. C. § 1651(a),

and (2) the legal rights at issue are “indisputably clear,”

Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U. S. 1301, 1303 (2001) (Rehnquist,

C. J., in chambers). Applicant has failed to establish that

this extraordinary remedy is appropriate. Therefore, I decline to issue an injunction pending appeal in this case.