NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DOUG LAIR; et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

JEFF MANGAN, in his official capacity as 

the Montana Commissioner of Political 

Practices; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-35700 

D.C. No. 6:12-cv-00012-CCL 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Charles C. Lovell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 11, 2020**

Before: RAWLINSON, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Appellants Doug Lair, the Lake County Republican Central Committee, and 

the Beaverhead County Republican Central Committee appeal from the district 

court’s order denying their motion for post-judgment relief under Federal Rule of 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 22 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-35700 

Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review the denial of a motion under Rule 60(b) for abuse of discretion. Henson v. 

Fid. Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 443 (9th Cir. 2019).

Upon review of the record, the opening brief, and the arguments raised in 

appellants’ motion to expedite this appeal for decision, we conclude this matter is 

suitable for decision without further briefing. See United States v. Hooton, 693 

F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (discussing standards for summary affirmance). We 

therefore grant appellants’ motion to expedite this appeal (Docket Entry No. 3), 

and we affirm the judgment.

Appellants challenge this court’s opinion in Lair v. Motl, 873 F.3d 1170 (9th 

Cir. 2017) (“Lair III”), cert. denied sub nom. Lair v. Mangan, 139 S. Ct. 916

(2019). In Lair III, this court reversed the judgment of the district court and upheld 

Montana’s campaign contribution limits under the standard set forth in Montana 

Right to Life Association v. Eddleman, 343 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2003). Appellants 

contend that the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Thompson v. Hebdon, 140 S. Ct. 

348 (2019), constitutes a change in the controlling law because it requires courts to 

apply the factors outlined in Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006), as opposed to 

Eddleman, and therefore requires reversal of Lair III. We disagree. 

The panel’s opinion in Lair III gave reasoned consideration to the question 

of whether Montana’s contribution limits raised any of the “danger signs” outlined 
3 20-35700 

in Randall. See Lair III, 873 F.3d at 1186-87. Finding none, the panel concluded 

that Montana’s contribution limits “would survive scrutiny even if Randall

governed.” Id. at 1187. The panel’s prior conclusion on this issue, “germane to 

the eventual resolution of the case,” remains the binding law of this circuit. See 

United States v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895, 914 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[W]here a panel 

confronts an issue germane to the eventual resolution of the case, and resolves it 

after reasoned consideration in a published opinion, that ruling becomes the law of 

the circuit, regardless of whether doing so is necessary in some strict logical 

sense.”). 

The district court correctly determined that this court, in Lair III, had in fact 

considered Randall in its analysis. Because the panel’s Lair III opinion previously 

confronted and resolved the issue raised by appellants, we remain bound by its 

conclusion. See Johnson, 256 F.3d at 914. The district court properly concluded 

that the Supreme Court’s decision in Thompson does not require reversal of Lair 

III, and thus properly denied appellant’s motion for relief from the judgment.

AFFIRMED.