### NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No. 09- 2170 D EM O CR A CY RI SI N G PA ; TI M PO TTS, A p p e llan ts v. J O H N R . C E L L U C I , i n hi s offi ci al capa ci tyas a M emberof the P e n n s y lv a n ia J u d ic ia l C o n d u c t B o a rd ; C H A R L E S A . C L E M E N T , J R ., i n hi s offi ci al capa ci tyas a M emberof the Penns y l vani a J udi ci al C o n d u c t B o a rd ; C H A R L E S J . C U N N IN G H A M , II I, in h is o f f icia l ca p a c itya s a M e m b e r o f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia J u d icia l C o n d u c t B o a rd ; C E C IL IA G R IF F E N G O L D E N , in h e r o f f icia l c a p a c itya s a M e m b e r o f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia J u d icia l C o n d u c t B o a rd ; PA T R I C K J U D G E , i n hi s offi ci al capa ci tyand as a M emberof th e P e n n s y lv a n ia J u d ic ia l C o n d u c t B o a rd ; E D W A R D R . K L E T T , i n hi s offi ci al capa ci tyand as a M emberof the Penns y l vani a J udi ci al C onductB oar d; G . C R A I G L O R D , i n hi s offi ci al capa ci tyand a s a M e m b e r o f

th e P e n n sy lv a n ia J u d icia l C o n d u c t B o a rd ; C H A R L E N E R . M C A B E E , i n heroffi ci al capa ci tyand a s a M e m b e r o f

th e P e n n sy lv a n ia J u d icia l C o n d u c t B o a rd ; C Y N T H I A N . M C C O R M I C K , i n heroffi ci al capa ci tyand a s a M e m b e r o f

th e P e n n sy lv a n ia J u d icia l C o n d u c t B o a rd ; J A C K A . PA N N E L L A , i n hi s offi ci al capa ci tyand as a M e m b e r o f

th e P e n n sy lv a n ia J u d icia l C o n d u c t B o a rd ; C A R O L IN E R U D N ITS K Y , i n h er offi ci al capac i tyand as a M e m b e r o f

th e P e n n sy lv a n ia J u d icia l C o n d u c t B o a rd ; J A M E S R . W E A V E R , i n hi s offi ci al capa ci tyand as a M e m b e r o f

th e P e n n sy lv a n ia J u d icia l C o n d u c t B o a rd ; PA U L J . K I L L I O N , i n hi s offi ci al capa ci tyas C hi ef D i s c i p l i n a r y C o u n s e l o f th e P e n n s yl v a n i a O f

f i c e o f D i s c i p l i n a ry C ouns el2 O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 1- 07- cv- 00860) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. C hr i s t opherC . C onner Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 13, 2010 B E FO R E : FI SH E R , H A R D I M A N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: M ay14, 2010) OP I NI ON C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udge Pl ai nt i ffs D emocr acyR i s i ng PA ( “D emocr acyR i s i ng”) and Ti m Pot t s appea l fr om th e o rd e r o f

th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia g ra n tin g D e f

e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n to d is m is s . W e w ill a f f ir m . I . T hi s appea l i nvol ves a Fi r s tA m endmentchal l enge t o a Penns y l vani a j udi ci al canon governi ng the s peec h of ca ndi dat es forj udi ci al offi ce i n the C om m onw eal th of Penns y l vani a. Penns y l vani a s el ect s j udges thr ough an el ect i on pr oces s . C andi dat es for j udi ci al offi ce a r e s el ect ed i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance i n a pr i m aryel ect i on, w hi ch i s then fol l ow ed bya gene r al part i s an el ect i on. O nce e l ect ed, s ervi ng j udges s t and for

“ re ten tio n ,” w h e re in th e v o ter s s im p lyd e c id e w h e th e r to re tain th e ju d g e o r to re m o v e h im3

orherfr om offi ce. T he ca m pai gn conductof j udi ci al candi dat es i s governed bythe Penns y l vani a C ode of J udi ci al C onduct , w hi ch i s a bodyof r egul at i ons pr om ul gat ed byt he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t . I n turn, the Penns y l vani a B oar d of J udi ci al C onduct ( “J udi ci al C onductB oar d”) r ece i ves and i nves t i gat es compl ai nt s r egar di ng the ca m pai gn act i vi t i es of s i t t i ng j udges . I f i tdeci des thatther e i s pr obabl e ca us e, the J udi ci al C onduct B oar d m ayfi l e cha r ges and pr os ecut e the i ndi vi dual befor e the Penns y l vani a C our tof Ju d icia l D isc ip lin e . In a d d iti o n , law y e rs r u n n in g f o r ju d icia l o f

f ice a re re q u ire d to c o m p ly w i th the appl i cabl e C anons and ar e s ubj ectt o r egul at i on and pos s i bl e pr os ecut i on byt he Penns y l vani a O ffi ce of

D i s ci pl i naryC ouns el ( “O D C ”) befor e the D i s ci pl i naryB oar d of the Supr eme C our tof Penns y l vani a. D emocr acyR i s i ng i s a non- part i s an or gani zat i on w i th a s t at ed mi s s i on of enha nci ng the tr ans par encyof the C om m onw eal th’ s el ect ed governm ent . Pot t s s erves as the pr es i dentof thi s or gani zat i on. B etw een J anuaryand M ar ch of 2007, Pl ai nt i ffs des i gned and di s tr i but ed a que s t i onnai r e t o everycandi dat e forj udi ci al el ect i on and r et ent i on i n t he C o m m o n w e a lth . A tthi s poi nti n t i m e, C anon 7B ( 1) ( c) pr ohi bi t ed j udi ci al candi dat es fr om , among o th e r th in g s, “ m a k [ in g ] sta tem e n ts th a t co m m it o r a p p e a r to c o m m it th e c a n d id a tes w ith r es pectt o cas es , contr over s i es ori s s ues thatar e l i kel yt o come befor e the court . ” Pa. C ode of J ud. C onductC anon 7B ( 1) ( c) ( 2007) . T hi s partof the C anon has gener al l ybeen r efe rr ed t o as the “Com m i t s C l aus e. ”4

A c c o rd in g to P lain tiff

s, se v e ra l ca n d id a tes in d ica ted a d e sire a n d w ill in g n e ss to a n sw e r th e q u e stio n n a ire b u t re f u se d to d o so . A t lea st s o m e o f th e se c a n d id a tes e x p re ss ly re lie d o n th e C a n o n a n d its s p e c if ic “ C o m m its C la u s e ” a s ju s tif ic a tio n s f

o r t h e irre f

u s a l. Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed thei ri ni t i al compl ai ntand a mot i on t o enj oi n on M ay10, 2007, s hor t l ybefor e the pr i m aryel ect i on. T heynamed as D efe ndant s the i ndi vi dual m ember s of the J u d ici al C o n d u ct B o ard as w ell as P au l J. K il li o n , w h o serv es a s the C h ief D isci p li n ary C ouns el of the O D C . T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d a hea r i ng on the pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on m ot i on on M ay14, 2007. O n t he s ame day , the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe E a ste rn D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia e n ter e d a n in ju n c tiv e o rd e r in P e n n sy lv a n ia F a m ily Institu te, Inc . v . C ell u ci, E . D . P a. C ivil A cti o n N o . 0 7 -17 0 7 (“P F I”). T h is ord er p re lim in a rilye n

jo in e d th e d e f

e n d a n ts in th a t ca se f

ro m , inte r a lia, e n f

o rc in g th e “ C o m m its C l aus e” of

C anon 7B ( 1) ( c) . See Pa. Fam i l yI ns t . , I nc. v. C el l uci , 489 F. Supp. 2d 447, 460 ( E . D . Pa. 2007) ( “PFI I ”) . B eca us e the pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on i n the PFI l i t i gat i on conce rned the s ame pr ovi s i on chal l enged i n thi s cas e, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed D e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n to s ta yth e in s ta n t m a tte r o n J u ly 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 . O n O ctob er 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , the P F I co u rtg ran ted th e d ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm entand vac at ed the pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. See Pa. Fam i l yI ns t . , I nc. v. C el l uci , 521 F. Supp. 2d 351, 388 ( E . D . Pa. 2007) ( “PFI I I ) . I tfound thatC anon 7B ( 1) ( c) w as con st i tuti on al bo th fac i al l yand as appli ed, bu ti tdid so onlyaft er, am on g o ther things, a c c e p tin g th e d e f

e n d a n ts’ n a rro w c o n stru c tio n o f th e “ C o m m its C lau se ” a n d sp e c if ica lly5

del et i ng the uncons t i tut i onal “appe art o comm i t ” l anguage fr om the C anon i t s el f. I d. at 372- 87. T he PFI courtfur thercl ar i fi ed the meani ng and ef fec tof i t s narr ow cons truct i on byadopt i ng i n ful l the af fi davi ts ubm i t t ed byJ os eph A . M as s a, J r . , the C hi ef Counsel for the J udi ci al C onductB oar d. I d. at381- 82. Itis un co n test ed that, o n o r ab o u t M arc h 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 , the P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rt amended C anon 7B ( 1) ( c) bydel et i ng the “appeart o comm i t ” l anguage . T he r evi s ed C a n o n n o w p ro h ib its c a n d id a tes f ro m m a k in g “ sta tem e n ts th a t co m m it th e c a n d id a te w ith r es pectt o cas es , contr over s i es ori s s ues thatar e l i kel yt o come befor e the court . ” Pa. C ode of J ud. C onductC anon 7B ( 1) ( c) ( 2009) ( amended M ar . 17, 2008) . I tappea r s thatthe J udi ci al C onductB oar d’ s w ebs i t e cont i nued t o i ncl ude the pr evi ous ver s i on of the C anon, atl eas tunt i l the D ece m ber2009 fi l i ng of Pl ai nt i ffs ’ appel l at e br i ef br oughtthi s over s i ght to th e D e f

e n d a n ts’ a tten tio n . A c c o rd in g to D e f e n d a n ts, P e n n sy lv a n ia R u les o f C o u rt, in c lu d in g th e C o d e o f

Ju d icia l C o n d u c t, are o f f icia llyp u b lish e d in th e P e n n sy lv a n ia B u lletin , an d th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt o rd e r a m e n d in g th e C a n o n is a v a ilab le th ro u g h th e ju d ic ia l w e b s ite . T he D i s tr i ctC our tr eopene d thi s cas e on A pr i l 7, 2008. Pl ai nt i ffs then fi l ed a s econd a m ended c om pl ai nt , i n w hi ch theyar gued, among ot herthi ngs , that : ( 1) the rul i ng i n PFI I I w as w r ong on i t s fac e and s houl d notbe fol l ow ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our t ; ( 2) “the S u p rem e C o u rto f P en n sy lvan ia’s rece n t m ino r am en d m en t” om itted a n ex p lana tory com m ent di scl osi ng the b i nd i ng repr esent at i on s m ade in the P F I l i t i gati on and otherw i seA l though i tal s o found thatPl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s forcompensa t oryr el i ef w er e i n fac t 1 j us t i ci abl e, the D i s tr i ctC our tneverthel es s di s m i s s ed thes e cl ai m s as barr ed byei thert he E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t o r t h e d o c tr in e o f q u a lif ie d im m u n ity. 6 fai l ed t o cons i derthe addi t i onal uncons t i tut i onal component s of the cha l l enged Canon not a d d re ss e d b yth e P F I c o u rt; an d (3 ) th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt “ d e sire s to m a in tain an ambi guous ethi cs rul e t o di s cour age j udi ci al candi dat es fr om ans w er i ng ques t i ons dur i ng pol i t i cal campai gns – a pol i cyadvanc ed bythe r ece ntm i noramendm entt o the chall eng ed can on w i tho ut an accom pan y i ng exp l anatorycom m ent t o p ub l i cl ydis cl ose a lle g e d b in d in g re p re s e n ta tio n s .” (A 4 4 .) D e f e n d a n ts m o v e d to d is m is s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i on t o di s m i s s i n an or derent er ed on M ar ch 20, 2009. I tpr ovi ded a thor ough expl anat i on forthi s r es ul ti n an ac company i ng me mo r a n d u m. I n s h o r t , th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tf o u n d th a t : ( 1 ) th e p r o s p e c t i v e c l a i ms req u esti n g injun cti v e a n d d ec laratoryreli ef m u st be d ism issed fo r w an t of A rt icl e III s t andi ng beca us e Pl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o s at i s fythe “w i l l i ng s peake r ” rul e w i th r es pectt o t he amended C anon; ( 2) thi s l ack of s t andi ng r equi r ed the D i s tr i ctC our tt o di s m i s s the p ro sp e c tiv e c laim s a n d re n d e re d a n yf u rth e r d isc u ss io n su p e rf lu o u s; a n d (3 ) e v e n if P l ai nti ffs otherw i se possessed the st and i ng t o seek p rospect i ve rel i ef, such clai m s m ust s t i l l be di s m i s s ed on r i penes s gr ounds due t o the abs ence of anyoffi ci al i nt erpr et at i on i nd i cat i ng that the am end ed “C om m i t s C l ause” p rohi bit s the spee ch sou gh tbyP l ai nti ffs’ ques t i onnai r e as w el l as Pl ai nt i ffs ’ fai l ur e t o es t abl i s h the exi s t ence of a w i l l i ng s peake r w i th r es pectt o t hi s amended C anon. 17 I I S ett ing asid e the justi ciab il ityd o ctri n es, i t i s u n d ispu ted th at th e D istri ct C o u rt p o s s e s s e d s u b

j e c tm a t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth i s m a t t e rp u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 3 1 . We have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound that D efe ndant s m ade a “fa ci al ” att ack on the j ur i s di ct i onal s uffi ci encyof Pl ai nt i ffs ’ pl eadi ng pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 1) . U nderthi s fr amew or k, a di s tr i ct co u rtm u st acc ep t th e a ll eg ati o n s in the co m p lai n t as true an d d eterm ine w h ethe r th eyare s uffi ci entt o i nvoke i t s j ur i s di ct i on. See, e. g. , C om m on C aus e of Pa. v. Penns y l vani a, 558 F. 3d 249, 257 ( 3d C i r . ) , cert . deni ed, 130 S. C t . 1015 ( 2009) . W e i n turn exer ci s e de novo r evi ew overa R ul e 12( b) ( 1) di s m i s s al . See, e. g. , i d. III . E vers i nce the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t ’ s 2002 rul i ng i n R epubl i can Partyof M inn eso ta v. W h it e, 53 6 U . S . 7 6 5 (20 0 2 ), o rga n izati o n s li k e D em o cra cyR isi n g an d o thers have f i l ed ca s es acr os s the countr ychal l engi ng the cons t i tut i onal i tyof s t at e r es tr i ct i ons on the s peec h of j udi ci al candi dat es . See, e. g. , Pa. Fam i l yI ns t . , I nc. v. B l ack, 489 F. 3d 156, 163 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( percur i am). I n addi t i on t o the under l y i ng cons t i tut i onal i s s ues , s uch p ro c e e d in g s o f

ten ra ise se rio u s ju stic iab ili typ ro b lem s. S e e , e.g ., id . at 1 6 3 -6 4 . T h is c u rre n t ca se is nota n e x c e p tio n . T hi s C our thas cons i der ed the r el evantcas e l aw , the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng, the r e c o r d o n a p p e a l , a n d th e n u me r o u s a s s e r t i o n s o f th e p a r t i e s th e ms e l v e s . I n th e e n d , wePl ai nt i ffs do notchal l enge on appeal the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of thei rnon- 2 p ro s p e c tiv e c la im s o n E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t a n d q u a lif ie d im m u n ity g ro u n d s . T he D i s tr i ctC our texpr es s l yfound thatthe pr os pect i ve cl ai m s m us tbe di s m i s s ed on 3 s t andi ng and r i penes s gr ounds . H ow ever , i tr efr ai ned fr om cons i der i ng w hethers uch cl ai m s w er e moot . U nderthe ci r cumst ance s , thi s C our tfi nds thatthe doctr i nes of m ootnes s and r i penes s pr ovi de the appr opr i at e fr amew or k forr es ol vi ng thi s appea l . See, e. g. , N i ci ni v. M orr a, 212 F. 3d 798, 805 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( “W e mayaff i r m the D i s tr i ct C our ton anygr ounds s uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. ” ( ci t i ng H edges v. M us co, 204 F. 3d 109, 1 1 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ))). N e v e rth e les s, th e D istric t C o u rt’s r e a so n in g w ith re sp e c t to s t andi ng, es peci al l yi t s appl i cat i on of the “w i l l i ng s peake r ” conc ept , has r el evanc e i n the m o o tn e s s in q u ir y . 8 c o n c lu d e th a t P lain tiff

s’ c laim s f

o r p ro sp e c tiv e re lief w e re p ro p e rlyd ism iss e d p u rsu a n t to 2 the doctr i nes of m ootnes s and r i penes s . T her efor e, l i ke the D i s tr i ctC our t , w e nee d not 3 ( and do not ) cons i derthe mer i t s of Pl ai nt i ffs ’ att ack on the cons t i tut i onal i tyof C anon 7B ( 1) ( c) atthi s t i m e. T he s peec h r es tr i ct i ons ati s s ue her e appl yt o the j udi ci al candi dat es themsel ves and nott o the Pl ai nt i ffs . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tappr opr i at el yturned t o the “w i l l i ng sp ea k er” rule in it s stan d ing an d ri p en ess a n aly sis. Itap p ea rs w ell estab li sh ed that, “w h ere one enj oy s the r i ghtt o s peak, ot her s hol d a ‘ r eci pr ocal r i ghtt o r ece i ve’ thats peec h, w hi ch

‘ m aybe as s ert ed’ i n court . ” B l ack, 489 F. 3d at165 ( quot i ng V a. St at e B d. of Pharm . v. V a. C i t i zens C on sum er C ou ncil , Inc. , 42 5 U . S . 74 8, 75 7 (197 6)) . In a r ecent case a d d r e s s i n g a F i r s tAm e n d me n tc h a l l e n g e t o P e n n s y l v a n i a ’ s j u d i c i a l c a n o n s a n d ru l e s , we hel d thatthe pl ai nt i ff musts at i s fya “butfor ” t es ti n or dert o benef i tfr om the “w i l l i ng s p e a k e r ” ru l e : “ As n o t e d , th e r e ma yb e o th e rr e a s o n s p r e s e n tb u t , r e a d i n g th e S u p r e me C our t ’ s cas es t ogetherw i th ourow n, w e hol d thati n or dert o s how the exi s t ence of a9

w i l l i ng speake r forthe p urposes of est abli shi ng thir d p artyst and i ng , a partym ustatl east demonstr at e thatbutfora r egul at i on, a s peake rs ubj ectt o i tw oul d be w i l l i ng t o s peak. ” I d. at167. L ik e w ise , “‘[ t]th e c e n tra l q u e stio n o f a ll m o o tn e ss p ro b lem s is w h e th e r c h a n g e s in ci r cumst ance s thatpr evai l ed atthe begi nni ng of the l i t i gat i on have f or es t al l ed any occa s i on form eani ngful r el i ef. ’ ” A m . B i r d C ons ervancyv. K empt horne, 559 F. 3d 184, 1 8 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o ti n g In re S u rri ck , 3 3 8 F . 3 d 2 2 4 , 2 3 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 )). In part i cul ar , an amendm entel i m i nat i ng thos e as pect s of a r egul at i on chal l enged i n the l i t i g a t i o n a c tu a l l ym o o t s th e c l a i m s f o rr e l i e f i n c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s . S e e , e . g . , N e x t e l W. C orp. v. U nityT w p. , 28 2 F . 3d 25 7, 26 1-62 (3d C i r. 20 02 ). O n the ot her han d, the ri pen ess d o c tr in e is d e s ig n e d to p re v e n t a p la in tif f f ro m p re m a tu re ly litig a tin g a c a s e . S e e , e .g ., K h o d a ra E n v tl. , In c . v . B lak e y , 3 7 6 F .3 d 1 8 7 , 1 9 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). T h e d o c trin e g e n e ra lly re q u ire s th e c o u rt to c o n sid e r su c h f a c to rs a s w h e th e r th e p a rties a re in a su f f icie n tly adver s ar i al pos tur e, w hetherthe fa ct s of the ca s e ar e s uffi ci ent l ydevel oped t o perm i tt he c o u rt to re so lv e th e m a tter in a c o n c lu siv e f a sh io n , an d w h e th e r th e p lain tiff is s u f f icie n tly aggr i eved s o as t o avoi d t he expe ndi tur e of s car ce j udi ci al r es our ces on m att er s thathave caus ed no r eal harm . See, e. g. , i d. T he D i s tr i ctC our ti n turn expr es s l yr ecogni zed that F ir s t A m e n d m e n t c a s e s re q u ir e s o m e re la x a tio n o f th e g e n e ra l r ip e n e s s s ta n d a rd .. R ej ect i ng the contr aryar gum ent s r ai s ed byPl ai nt i ffs on appea l , thi s C our tfi nds t hat ev en ts th at ha v e o cc u rred sinc e this li ti g ati o n w as o ri g inallyfil ed in the D istri ct C o u rt10

have c l ear l ym oot ed Pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s forpr os pect i ve r el i ef. O n O ct ober16, 2007, the P F I co u rtn arro w lyco n stru ed the “ C o m m it s C laus e” co n tai n ed in C an o n 7 B (1)(c), s peci fi cal l yel i m i nat i ng the “appeart o comm i t ” l anguage as uncons t i tut i onal . PFI I I , 521 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 3 7 2 -8 7 . In tu rn , the P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt f o rm a llyd e lete d th is pr obl emat i c l anguage on oraboutM ar ch 17, 2008. I ns t ead of tr eat i ng thes e eve nt s as at l eas ta s ubs t ant i al vi ct oryi n t hei rfavor , Pl ai nt i ffs have, i nt eral i a, vi gor ous l yatt acke d the PFI c our t ’ s r eas oni ng, the amended C anon, and the ac t i ons ( and eve n the mot i ves ) of D efe ndant s and the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t . W hi l e Pl ai nt i ffs es peci al l yt ake i s s ue w i th the fa i l ur e t o i ncorpor at e the M as s a af fi davi ti nt o the amendm enti n s om e form al w ay ( s uch as i n an expl anat orynot e) , w e not e that , among ot herthi ngs , D efe ndant s themsel ves i n d i c a t e i n th e i ra p p e l l a t e b r i e f th a tth e yr e ma i n b o u n d b yth i s a f f i d a v i t . I n a n yc a s e , we m u st d ism iss th e c laim s a s m o o t b e c a u se o f th e c lea r a b se n c e o f

a n yju d icia l ca n d id a te w ho w oul d have be en w i l l i ng t o s peak butf orthe am ended C anon . A t bes t, there w ere j udi ci al candi dat es w ho i ndi cat ed a w i l l i ngnes s t o s peak butforthe exi s t ence of an e ar l i er and now defunc tver s i on of the C anon. I n fac t , s ever al of thes e ca ndi dat es expr es s l yci t ed o r o th e rw ise re f

e rre d to th e sin c e -d e lete d “ a p p e a r to c o m m it” la n g u a g e in ju stif y in g th e ir re f u s a l to a n s w e r P la in tif

f s ’ q u e s tio n n a ir e . T hi s r eas oni ng fur thers uppor t s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s al t ernat i ve fi ndi ng thatthe c laim s w e re n o t y e t rip e . C iti n g to its e a rlier d e c isio n in B lac k , the D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly o b serv ed that P lai n ti ff

s fa il ed to p rese n t anyev iden ce su g g esti n g that a P en n sy lvan ia co u rt11

oragenc yhas i nt erpr et ed the cur r ent “ C o m m its C lau se ” to p ro h ib it th e sp e e c h it so u g h t in the ques t i onnai r e. I tdi d r ecogni ze thatthi s C our tpr evi ous l ys t at ed that , “had [ the pl ai nt i ff] es t abl i s hed the exi s t ence of a w i l l i ng s peake r , the under l y i ng chal l enge t o the C anons and R ul es themsel ves as havi ng a chi l l i ng eff ecton s peec h w oul d have be en r i pe. ” B l ack, 489 F. 3d at170. N everthel es s , i ti s cl earthatPl ai nt i ffs her e fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h the exi s t ence of a w i l l i ng s peake rw i th r es pectt o the A m ended Canon. I V. F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r o f d is m is s a l.