Source: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/document-type/opinionsorders
Timestamp: 2018-05-20 10:04:45
Document Index: 290386641

Matched Legal Cases: ['§441', '§203', 'art_1', '§ 441', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 211']

Opinions/Orders | Campaign Legal Center
Home > Taxonomy term > Opinions/Orders
FEC v. Beaumont: Fourth Circuit court's opinion (January 15, 2002)
orderintervene.pdf
amendschedule.pdf
interrogatories.pdf
Randall v. Sorrell: Opinion of the Second Circuit Court
discoveryschedule.pdf
expertwitnessorder.pdf
calhypoorder.pdf
dismissnawd.pdf
witnessorder.pdf
briefingorderdc.pdf
factlawagreementorder.pdf
dcoralargumentorder.pdf
confidentialityorder.pdf
expertreportorder.pdf
finaljudgmentorderdc.pdf
finaljudgmentorder.pdf
memosealed.pdf
ordersealed.pdf
kollarkotelly.pdf
percuriam.pdf
order3.pdf
stayscheduledc.pdf
ordermemo.pdf
FEC v. Beaumont: Supreme Court majority opinion (7-2) (June 16, 2003)
FEC v. Beaumont: Copy of a concurring opinion filed by Justice Anthony Kennedy (June 16, 2003)
FEC v. Beaumont: Copy of a dissenting opinion filed by Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia (June 16, 2003)
Shays v. FEC I: District Court’s order staying the proceedings until the Supreme Court ruled in McConnell v. FEC
The lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 - eleven suits brought by more than 80 plaintiffs - were consolidated asMcConnell v. FEC. The defendants in the case were the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission; the Act's principal congressional sponsors - Senators McCain, Feingold, Snowe and Jeffords and Congressmen Meehan and Shays -were intervenor-defendants. The Legal Center 's attorneys were among the counsel to the congressional sponsors.
A three-judge trial panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a mixed decision on the law's constitutionality on May 1, 2003 .
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on December 10, 2004 , upholding all key aspects of the Reform Act.
McConnell decision.pdf
oconnorstevens.pdf
breyer.pdf
scalia.pdf
rehnquistdissent.pdf
stevensdissent.pdf
Shays v. FEC I: District Court’s opinion striking down 15 separate FEC regulations implementing the Reform Act
Shays v. FEC I: District Court’s opinion on the requested stay of its decision pending appeal
Kean for Congress v. FEC: District Court order denying motion to dismiss
Kean for Congress v. FEC: District Court order granting remand to the FEC for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell
Shays v. FEC I: Court of Appeals decision in Shays v. FEC, affirming the district court striking down 15 of the 19 challenged FEC regulations
Shays v. FEC I: Court of Appeals order asking for appellee-plaintiffs to respond to a petition for rehearing en banc filed by the FEC
Randall v. Sorrell: Supreme Court opinion
Kean for Congress v. FEC: FEC's complete decision
Kean for Congress v. FEC: District Court's opinion granting an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $17,343.67, in reply to a motion filed byCLC
CCL v. FEC: Court's order on intervention
CCL v. FEC: Court's order granting intervention
CCL v. FEC: Supreme Court order denying motion to expedite.
New York State Board of Elections v. Margarita Lopez Torres: Second Circuit decision affirming the district court’s order (August 30, 2006)
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee v. City of San Jose:District court order granting motion for summary judgment
Willie Ray v. The State of Texas: District court’s findings of fact decision(October 31, 2006)
Assoc. of American Physicians v. Brewer: 9th Circuit Court decision dismissing the case as moot (May 10, 2007)
Davis v. FEC: District court's opinion (August 8, 2007)
Shays v. FEC III: District Court's opinion (Sept. 12, 2007)
Willie Ray v. The State of Texas: District court’s amended discovery order (January 8, 2008)
Green_v_Garfield_district_ct_Ruling_3.20.08.pdf
NAM_v_Taylor_DistCt_Order_denying_stay_pending_appeal.4.18.08.pdf
NAMCircuitOrderdenyingstaypendingappeal4.21.08.pdf
Shays v. FEC III: Circuit Court Opinion (June 13, 2008)
Davis v. FEC: Supreme Court's 5-4 opinion striking down the millionaire's Amendment (June 26, 2008)
Human Life of Washington, Inc. v. Brumsickle: District court order denying plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (July 9, 2008)
HLW_Order_Denying_PI_7.9.08.pdf
Citizens United v. FEC: Memorandum Opinion on Summary Judgement (July 18, 2008)
Citizens United v. FEC: Order on Summary Judgement (July 18, 2008)
Willie Ray v. The State of Texas: District court’s decision denying plaintiffs' summary judgment motion (August 7, 2008)
McComish v. Bennett: District Court’s order denying plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order (Aug. 29, 2008)
McComish_Ariz_case_TRO_order_8-29-08.pdf
Ohio Right to Life Society v. Ohio Elections Commission: District Court's opinion and order (Sept. 5, 2008)
RTAO_dist_ct_Memo_Opinion_on_PI_9.24.08.pdf
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee v. City of San Jose: 9th Circuit Court opinion
Unity08 v. FEC: District Court opinion (October 16, 2008)
McComish v. Bennett: District Court’s opinion on its order denying plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction (Oct. 17, 2008)
McComish_PI_Opinion_10.17.08.pdf
RNC v. FEC: District court order granting application for a three-judge panel (Nov. 28, 2008)
RNC_dst_ct_Order_panel_app11.28.08.pdf
RNC (Cao) v. FEC: District court scheduling order
D.C. District Court scheduling order, with dates that each party must file their briefs and documents.
Human Life of Washington, Inc. v. Brumsickle: Western District of Washington District Court order
Western District of Washington District Court order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
HLW_Order_Denying_Summary_Judgment.1.8.09.pdf
Bartlett v. Strickland: Supreme Court's decision
Supreme Court decision. The judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina is affirmed.
Caperton v. Massey: Supreme Court's decision
Supreme Court decision. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined. Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined. Scalia filed a dissenting opinion.
United States v. O'Donnell: District court’s order
Central District of California District Court's order. The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment. Counts One and Two are dismissed.
ODonnell-3_Order_6.8.09.pdf
Northwest Austin MUD v. Gonzales: Supreme Court’s decision
Supreme Court's decision. The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
United States v. O'Donnell: District court’s order to dismiss count three
Central District of California District Court’s order to dismiss count three.
ODonnell-5_Stipulation_to_Dismiss_Count_3_6.25.09.pdf
Citizens United v. FEC: Order for re-argument
Order for re-argument.
Citizens United v. FEC: SCOTUS order for reargument
Case is restored to the calendar for reargument. The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question: For the proper disposition of this case, should the Court overrule either or both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), and the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), which addresses the facial validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U.S.C. §441b?
United States v. O'Donnell: District court’s order dismissing court three
It is ordered that: 1. The trial date of July 7, 2009 is vacated; 2. Count three of the indictment is dismissed without prejudice; and 3. Any outstanding bond is exonerated.
ODonnell-4_Order_Dismissing_Count_3_6.26.09.pdf
Green_v_Garfield_Memorandum_of_Decision_8.27.09.pdf
582_F.3d_1.pdf
Findings_of_Fact_9.28.09.pdf
McComish v. Bennett: District Court’s order
District Court for the District of Arizona’s order granting Plaintiffs summary judgment and finding unconstitutional the matching funds trigger provisions.
McComish_1.20.10_Order_Granting_SJ_on_Trigger.pdf
Citizens United v. FEC: Supreme Court Opinion
Supreme Court opinion on Citizens United. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.
RNC (Cao) v. FEC: District Court for Eastern District of Louisiana Order and Reasons
The District Court for Eastern District of Louisiana's Order and Reasons. It is ordered that plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (Rec. Doc. 78) is denied. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify (Rec. Doc. 19) is granted in part. The questions included in the document are to be certified to the en banc panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Cao_v_FEC_Order_granting_cert_in_part_1-27-10.pdf
Thalheimer v. San Diego: District Court for the Southern District of California’s order
District Court for the Southern District of California’s order granting preliminary injunction on five issues and declining it on three.
Thalheimer-Dist_Ct_Order_on_Preliminary_Injunction_2.16.10.pdf
Unity08 v. FEC: DC Circuit Court of Appeal's decision
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal's decision. Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge Williams. The judgment of the district court is reversed.
Unity_CirCt_decision03-02-10.pdf
RNC (Cao) v. FEC: Opinion of the three-judge district court panel
Memorandum opinion of the three-judge district court panel. The FEC's motion for summary judgment is granted, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied, and the FEC's motion to dismiss is dismissed as moot.
Decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court concludes that the contribution limits set forth in certified questions 1, 2, and 3 cannot be constitutionally applied against SpeechNow and the individual plaintiffs. The Court further concludes that there is no constitutional infirmity in theapplication of the organizational, administrative, and reporting requirements set forth in certified questions 4 and 5. The Court also concludes that because of the decision made, as guided by Citizens United, which intervened since the entry of the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ petition for injunctive relief, the district court’s order denying injunctive relief is vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the decision.
SpeechNow_Circuit_Court_Decision_3.26.10.pdf
Supreme Court’s order granting certiorari and vacating judgment.
RTAO_Sp_Ct_Cert._Sum._Disp._4-26-10.pdf
FEC: Advisory Opinion 2010-03
Advisory opinion written by the FEC to Marc Elias and Kate Keane of Perkins Coie LLP. The FEC is responding to their request concerning the application of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (“the Act”), and Commission regulations to the solicitation of funds by Members of Congress on behalf of the Trust. The Commission concludes that the Trust‟s proposed activities are not in connection with an election and therefore Members of Congress may solicit funds on behalf of the Trust that do not comply with the Act‟s amount limitations and source prohibitions.
LaRoque v. Holder: District Court’s Order Denying Motion to Convene Three-Judge Court
It is ordered that plaintiffs' application for a three-judge court is denied.
Laroque_-_denying_motion_to_convene_three-judge_court.pdf
McComish v. Bennett: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the constitutionality of Arizona’s public financing program.
McComish_9th_Cir._Opinion_5.21.10.pdf
McComish v. Bennett: Supreme Court order
Supreme Court order to stay the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
McComish_Sup_Ct_6.8.10__order.pdf
United States v. O'Donnell: Decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Opinion given by Judge Fisher. The Court holds that § 441f prohibits straw donor contributions, in which a defendant solicits others to donate to a candidate for federal office in their own names and furnishes the money for the gift either through an advance or a prearranged reimbursement. The Court further holds that the indictment against O’Donnell is sufficient. Accordingly, the district court’s order dismissing counts one and two of the indictment is reversed, and the case is remanded.
9th_Cir._Decision_6.14.10.pdf
RNC (Cao) v. FEC: Summary disposition
Summary disposition affirming judgment.
RNC_SpCtOrder_summary_affirmance_6-29-10.pdf
Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the constitutionality of Connecticut’s public financing program.
Green_v_Garfield_Ct_of_Appeals_Decision_7.13.10.pdf
Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the constitutionality of the lobbyist and state contractor contribution restrictions. The February 11, 2009 partial judgment of the District Court on Count Four of this action is affirmed in part and reversed in part as set forth in sections (1) through (7) of the conclusion. The cause is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with the instructions set forth in section (8) of the conclusion.
Green_v_Garfield_Ct_of_Appeals_Decision_lobbyist_contractor_7.13.10No._2.pdf
Fourth Circuit's order denying Plaintiff-Appellant’s request for rehearing en banc.
RTAO_cir_ct_order_Denial_of_rehearing_request_8-6-10.pdf
District Court of Connecticut’s Permanent Injunction order given by District Judge Stefan R. Underhill. Judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiffs Green Party of Connecticut, S. Michael DeRosa, and the Libertarian Party with respect to counts two and three because the CEP’s excess and independent expenditure trigger provisions burden the plaintiffs’ First Amendment speech rights. Judgment is also entered in favor of the plaintiffs the ACL, Barry Williams, Anne C. Robinson, Elizabeth Gallo, Joanne P. Phillips, Roger C. Vann with respect to the claims in count four that the Connecticut Campaign Finance Reform Act (“CFRA”)’s prohibition of lobbyists making and soliciting campaign contributions, and state contractors soliciting campaign contributions, violates the First Amendment.
Green_v_Garfield_Permanent_Injunction_Order_8.11.10.pdf
LaRoque v. Holder: District Court’s Order Granting Intervention
District Court grants intervention.
Laroque_Order_granting_Intervention_8.25.10.pdf
Ohio Right to Life Society v. Ohio Elections Commission: District Court’s order granting leave to plaintiff to file the amended complaint
District Court’s order granting leave to plaintiff to file the amended complaint. The Court believes that the most appropriate action under the scenario is to grant the motion to amend and to permit Defendants to challenge, should they so choose, the Amended Verified Complaint by way of a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 65) is granted. Because Defendants’ motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds (Doc. 56) does not address the additional facts in the amended complaint, which arguably cure any jurisdictional deficiency, it is denied as moot.
Ohio_RtL_Order_granting_pl_mtn_to_amend_complaint_8-26-10.pdf
Willie Ray v. The State of Texas: Settlement Agreement
Settlement agreement document.
Ohio Right to Life Society v. Ohio Elections Commission: Both parties’ consent decree
Plaintiff, Ohio Right to Life Society and Ohio Elections Commission determine that the issues expressly set forth in this Consent Decree are severable from the other issues that remain pending in this case. In addition, the Parties agree that there is no just reason for delay in entering final judgment as to the issues and claims set forth in the Consent Decree.
Ohio_RtL_consent_decree_9-15-10.pdf
Shelby County, AL v. Holder: District Court’s order denying defendant’s and intervenors’ request for discovery
D.C. District Court’s memorndum opinion and order. The Court orders that the government's request for discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) is denied; and it is further ordered that the government and defendant-intervenors shall file an opposition to Shelby County's motion for summary judgment by not later than November 15, 2010; Shelby County may file a reply in support of its motion by not later than December 15, 2010.
Ct._Order_Denying_Discovery_9.16.10.pdf
Ohio Right to Life Society v. Ohio Elections Commission: Southern District of Ohio District Court’s order
Southern District of Ohio District Court’s order.Plaintiff’s Motion to consolidate the preliminary injunction as to with a trial on the merits, as to these issues, is granted. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is granted in part and denied in part.
Ohio_RtL_TRO_order_9-20-10.pdf
Minnesota Citizens Concerned For Life (MCCL) v. Swanson: District Court of Minnesota Memorandum Opinion and Order
District Court of Minnesota Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court denies Plaintiffs‟ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Because the Court considered only Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate, the Court directs the parties to contact the Chambers of Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron to proceed with a Rule 16 scheduling conference.
Decision_denying_PI_09-20-10.pdf
Human Life of Washington, Inc. v. Brumsickle: Decision of the Ninth Circuit
Decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Opinion_10.12.10.pdf
United States v. O'Donnell: Order of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denying defendant-appellee’s petition for rehearing.
odonnell_ac_order_denying_pet_for_rehg.pdf
LaRoque v. Holder: District Court’s Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
The Court grants defendant's motion to dismiss case.
laroque_distct_MemoOpinion_12.20.10.pdf
Human Life of Washington, Inc. v. Brumsickle: U.S. Supreme Court order denying petition for certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court order denying petition for certiorari.
Order_Denying_Cert_2.22.11.pdf
Minnesota Citizens Concerned For Life (MCCL) v. Swanson: Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion made by Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Melloy. The district court denied the motion, and Minnesota Citizens appealed this denial. The Eighth Circuit Court affirms.
Opinion_5-16-11 (1).pdf
Thalheimer v. San Diego: Ninth Circuit’s opinion affirming the district court's decision
The Ninth Circuit’s opinion affirming the district court's decision. Before Circuit Judges Wardlaw and Fletcher and Senior District Judge Timlin.
Opinion_6-9-11.pdf
McComish v. Bennett: Supreme Court opinion striking down the trigger provisions
Supreme Court opinion striking down the trigger provisions.
McComish_Opinion_6-27-11.pdf
Doe v. Reed: District Court Order Granting Summary Judgment
Op. granting state SJ, 10-17-11.pdf
American Tradition Partnership (ATP) v. Bullock: Stay Order
The application for stay presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is granted, and the Montana Supreme Court’s December 30, 2011, decision in case No. DA 11-0081, is stayed pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari.
Stay_Order_2.17.12.pdf
Yamada v. Weaver: Opinion of the district court
Order (1) permanently enjoining defendants from enforcing HRS § 11-358 as-applied to specified contributions to AFA-PAC, a committee making only independent campaign expenditures; and (2) upholding the constitutionality, as challenged, of provisions of HRS §§ 11-302, 355 & 391.
Yamada_v._Weaver_SJ_Opinion_3.21.12.pdf
By cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties ask the Court to determine the constitutionality of various provisions of the Texas Election Code that provide a private cause of action against persons and corporations who violate Texas campaign finance laws.
King_Street_Patriots_v_Texas_Democratic_Party_Summary_Judgment_3-27-12.pdf
Van Hollen v. FEC: District Court’s ruling that the FEC’s regulations implementing the disclosure laws are improper
Court grants plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denies defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. The Court also denies intervenor-defendant Hispanic Leadership Fund’s motion to dismiss and intervenor-defendant Center for Individual Freedom’s cross motion for summary judgment.
Van_Hollen_v__FEC_SJ_Opinion_3.30.12.pdf
Van Hollen v. FEC: D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denying a request to stay the District Court ruling
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denying a request to stay the District Court ruling.
Order_denying_stay_pending_appeal_5.14.12.pdf
National Organization for Marriage (NOM) v. Sec. State of Florida: Opinion
Opinion for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirming for the reasons indicated by the district court and for the reasons that the First Circuit in National Organization for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1635 (2012), rejected the same challenges. Furthermore, with respect to Plaintiff’s overbreadth challenge regarding disclosure requirements, Part IV of the majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), is controlling.
Opinion_5-17-12.pdf
Shelby County, AL v. Holder: Opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
Opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals before Judges Tatel and Griffith and Senior Circuit Judge Williams. Judge Tatel filed the opinion with Judge Williams filing a dissenting opinion.
Opinion_5-18-12.pdf
Fourth Circuit's decision affirming the summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellees, FEC.
Opinion_6-12-2012.pdf
American Tradition Partnership (ATP) v. Bullock: Montana Supreme Court's order upholding the State's restrictions on corporate independent political expenditures
Montana Supreme Court's order upholding the State's restrictions on corporate independent political expenditures.
Opinion_and_dissent_6-25-12.pdf
Opinion issued by the three-judge panel, and filed by Circuit Judge Tatel, denying the state's request for a declaratory judgement.
Texas_Voter_ID_Opinion_8-30-12.pdf
Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) v. Deininger: District Court's decision
Decision and order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’second Motion for Preliminary Injunction and temporary restraining order.
Opinion_8-31-12.pdf
Minnesota Citizens Concerned For Life (MCCL) v. Swanson: En Banc Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
En Banc for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
MCCL_v_FEC_Opinion_9-5-12 (1).pdf
Van Hollen v. FEC: D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturning the District Court decision
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturns the District Court decision.
Van_Hollen_Judgment_9.18.12.pdf
Free Speech v. FEC: Minute Order
A Civil Minute Oral Ruling sheet with a telephonic order. The Court finds the Plaintiff has failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its action and is not entitled to a preliminary injunction therefore the Plaintiff's motion is denied.
2012_10_04_-_Free_Speech_-_minutes_of_hearing_-_denying_injunction.pdf
Hispanic Leadership Fund v. FEC: Eastern District of Virginia Order
Order given in the Eastern District of Virginia. It is ordered that HLF's request for an injunction is denied and that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment pursuant to Rule 58, Fed.R.Civ.P., in accordance with this Order, and to place this matter among the ended causes.
Hispanic_Leadership_Fund_Order_10-5-12.pdf
Hispanic Leadership Fund v. FEC: Eastern District of Virginia Memorandum Opinion
The Eastern District Court of Virginia finds that the ripeness and standing jurisdictional requirements are met and some, but not all, of the advertisements at issue are "electioneering communications" subject to FECA's disclosure requirements.
Hispanic_Leadership_Fund_Memorandum_Opinion_10-5-12.pdf
Illinois Liberty PAC v. Madigan: Northern District Court of Illinois memorandum opinion and order
Northern District Court of Illinois memorandum opinion and order. Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
ILP_v_Madigan_Memo_Op__Denying_PI_10-5-12.pdf
South Carolina v. United States: Opinion of the three-judge court
Opinion of the three-judge court, with the Court Opinion filed by Circuit Judge Kavanaugh. The Court concludes that the new South Carolina law does not have a discriminatory retrogressive effect, as compared to the benchmark of South Carolina’s pre-existing law. They also conclude that Act R54 was not enacted for a discriminatory purpose.
SC_v_US_Opinion_10-10-12.pdf
FEC: Advisory Opinion 2012-32
FEC responding to Stephen Hoersting and Dan Backer's advisory opinion request on behalf of the Tea Party Leadership Fund (“TPLF”), Sean Bielat, and John Raese, concerning the application of the Federal Election Campaign Act (the “Act”) and Commission regulations to contributions by an aspiring multicandidate political committee to Federal candidates. The Commission concludes that, at this time, the Act prohibits TPLF from making contributions over $2,500 per election to Mr. Bielat and Mr. Raese, and that it currently prohibits Mr. Bielat and Mr. Raese from accepting such contributions.
AO 2012-32.pdf
Minnesota Citizens Concerned For Life (MCCL) v. Swanson: Memorandum Opinion and Order
In this action, Plaintiffs challenge several Minnesota statutes that relate to campaign finance and disclosure. Plaintiffs allege that the challenged statutes— CASE 0:10-cv-02938-DWF-JSM Document 102 Filed 10/12/12 Page 1 of 8 2 Minnesota Statute § 10A.12, subds. 1 and 1a, § 10A.01, subd. 18, § 10A.27, subd. 13, and § 211B.15, subds. 2, 3, and 4—are unconstitutional because they violate both the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek both a declaratory judgment that the challenged statutes are unconstitutional and an injunction enjoining enforcement of the challenged statutes. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 20, 2010 (the “September 2010 Order”), this Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. No. 59.) In the September 2010 Order, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of success on all counts and that the remaining Dataphase factors would likely weigh in Defendants’ favor.
Mem._opinion_10-12-12.pdf
Wagner v. FEC: Memorandum Opinion
Memorandum Opinion granting summary judgment in favor of the FEC. On revisiting the previous decision, the Court reaches the same conclusion: Congress may constitutionally bar federal contractors from contributing to candidates, parties, and their committees.
Wagner_v_FEC_Opinion_Granting_FEC_SJ_11-2-12.pdf
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, for further consideration in light of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___ (2012).
Order_denying_cert_1-7-13.pdf
The Supreme Court's order noting probable jurisdiction.
Orders_2-19-13.pdf
Shelby County, AL v. Holder: Supreme Court’s opinion
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Shelby County, AL v. Holder. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joined. Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
Shleby_County_v_Holder_Opinion_6-25-13.pdf
Chief Justice Kennedy announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Scailia, Kennedy, and Alito joined. Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
McCutcheon_v_FEC_Opinion_4-2-14.pdf
ProtectMarriage.com v Bowen: Ninth Circuit Opinion
The panel affirmed in part the district court’s summary judgment and dismissed in part the appeal as non-justiciable in an action challenging California’s Political Reform Act of 1974, which requires political committees to report certain information about their contributors to the State, specifically, semi-annual disclosures identifying those individuals who have contributed more than $100 during or after a campaign, in addition to each contributor’s address, occupation and employer.
ProtectMarriage_v__Bowen_Opinion_5_20_14.pdf
Delaware Strong Families v. Denn: Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Opinion
The Court reverses the District Court and remands for entry of judgment in favor of Appellants.
Delaware Strong Families v Attorney General of Delaware Opinion of Third Circuit Court of Apeals 7-16-15.pdf
VRLC v. Sorrell: Opinion of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Plaintiffs, a non‐profit corporation and a Vermont political committee, appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (William K. Sessions, III, Judge) granting summary judgment to Defendants, Vermont officials charged with enforcing Vermont elections statutes. The non‐profit corporation asserts that statutory provisions requiring identification of the speaker on any “electioneering communication,” requiring reporting of certain “mass media activities,” and defining and requiring reporting by “political committees” are void for vagueness and violate the First Amendment facially and as applied. The Vermont political committee brings an as‐applied challenge against a provision limiting contributions to political committees. We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
VRTL_v_Sorrell_Opinion_7-2-14.pdf
Wolfson v. Concannon: Order of the Ninth Circuit to Rehear Case En Banc
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. Judges McKeown and Murguia did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.
Wolfson_v_Concannon_Order_granting_rehearing_en_banc_9-26-14.pdf
Upon consideration of the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Stay Consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 10, and the plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 7, the related legal memoranda in support and in opposition, the declarations attached thereto, and the entire record herein, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that, because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the defendant’s Motion to Stay Consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction are DENIED as moot; and it is further
NY_Republican_State_Committee_v_SEC_Order_Granting_Mot__to_Dismiss_9-30-14.pdf
Plaintiff Independence Institute, a Colorado non-profit organization, brought this action against Defendant Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief declaring that the disclosure provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”) are unconstitutional as applied to a specific radio advertisement that Plaintiff plans to run before the November 4, 2014, federal elections. Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s [3] Application for a Three Judge Court and Plaintiff’s [5] Motion for Preliminary Injunction. In the interest of expediting the resolution of this action, the parties agreed that the Court would rule on the merits of the Complaint as opposed to the preliminary injunction. Upon consideration of the pleadings,1 the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions. Plaintiff’s claims are foreclosed by clear United States Supreme Court precedent, principally by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). See id. at 366-71. Having considered the merits of this dispute, the Court enters JUDGMENT for Defendant. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED in its entirety.
Independence_Institute_v_FEC_-_DC_Dist_Ct_Opinion_Disimissing_10-6-14.pdf
This appeal is limited to facial challenges to the constitutionality of various Election Code provisions. “A party seeking to invalidate a statute ‘on its face’ bears a heavy burden of showing that the statute is unconstitutional in all of its applications.” Facing cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court ruled against appellants King Street Patriots (KSP), Catherine Engelbrecht, Bryan Engelbrecht, and Diane Josephs, the parties facially challenging the constitutionality of the Election Code provisions. The trial court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider some of appellants’ constitutional challenges and, as to the remaining challenges, the trial court upheld the constitutionality of the Election Code provisions at issue. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
King_Street_Patriots_Opinion_10-8-14.pdf
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a), after hearing and carefully considering all the evidence, the Court issues this Opinion as its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court holds that SB 14 creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose. The Court further holds that SB 14 constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax.
Texas_Voter_ID_Decision_10-9-14.pdf
The applications to vacate the stay entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on October 14, 2014, presented to Justice Scalia and by him referred to the Court are denied. The motion for leave to file the response to the applications under seal with redacted copies for the public record is granted.
Veasey_v_Perry_SCOTUS_Order_10-18-14.pdf
Independence Institute v. Gessler: District Court's Order
The Secretary of State of Colorado, who administers and enforces Colorado’s election laws, stipulates that the ad can be classified as genuine issue advocacy but maintains that application of the reporting and disclosure requirements is constitutional. Judge R. Brooke Jackson agrees.
Independence_Institute_v_Gessler_ORDER_10-22-14.pdf
Independence Institute v. Gessler: District Court's Final Judgment
Judge R. Brooke Jackson's final judgment and order, entered on October 22, 2014.
Independent_Institute_v_Gessler_Judgment_10-22-14.pdf
Van Hollen v. FEC: District Court’s Memorandum Opinion
The District Court for the District of Coumbia's ruling on the FEC’s regulations implementing disclosure laws.
2014_11_25_Van_Hollen_v_FEC_Opinion.pdf
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Gessler: District Court's Order
Judge Robert E. Blackburn denies both motion for preliminary injunction and the motion for temporary restraining order.
RMGO_v_Gessler_Order_Denying_TRO_12-16-14.pdf
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Supreme Court Opinion
Ginsburg, delivered the opinion of the court, in which Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined. Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas joined. Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia joined. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona is affirmed.
13-1314_kjfl.pdf
New York Republican State Committee v SEC Opinion 8-26-2015.pdf
2015-11-25 Opinion granting three-judge court.pdf
Van Hollen v. FEC: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Opinion
In Van Hollen v. FEC, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit once again upheld an FEC rule that severely limits federal disclosure requirements connected to “electioneering communications.” The appellate panel overturned a district court decision holding the rule “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law” for improperly narrowing the scope of the McCain-Feingold law’s disclosure requirements and allowing nonprofit 501(c)(4) advocacy groups, 501(c)(6) business associations, and others to spend millions on “electioneering communications” without disclosing their donors.
2016-01-21 Opinion.pdf
Wolfson v. Concannon: Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Opinion
In Wolfson v. Concannon, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Arizona rules involving campaigns for judicial office. Prior to the en banc proceedings, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel had invalidated the challenged rules—which include provisions restricting judicial candidates from personally soliciting political contributions or endorsing, speaking in favor of or campaigning for non-judicial candidates—as they applied to non-incumbent judicial candidates. Invoking the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, the en banc court held that Arizona’s rules are narrowly tailored to its compelling interest in upholding public confidence in the judiciary.
Wolfson - 9th Circuit Filed Opinion 01-27-2016.pdf
LA Repub PC-D21-CLC Proposed order as filed.pdf
WFEP+-+Order+assigning+Judges+2015+09+29.pdf
WvN+-+MTD+Decision.pdf
Evenwel v. Abbott: Supreme Court Opinion
The U.S. Supreme Court today unanimously held in Evenwel v. Abbott that all people count for the purpose of drawing voting districts, not just eligible voters.
14-940_ed9g.pdf
Shapiro v. McManus: Supreme Court Opinion
mcmanus decision.pdf
Opinion on Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Supreme Court Opinion
Harris opinion.pdf
North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina Opinion
nc-voting.pdf
15A999 Veasey v. Abbott Order.pdf
2015-11-25 Order granting motion for 3-judge court.pdf
Order Denying Motion for Fees.pdf
McDonnell Decision.pdf
Wright v. Sumter County Board of Elections and Registration: Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Per Curiam Opinion
Wright Per Curiam Opinion.pdf
texas-id-order.pdf
2016-11-03 Opinion.pdf
2016-11-07 Opinion.pdf
Gil Ramirez Group v. Houston Independent School District: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Verdict
Gil Ramirez Group v. HISD Verdict.pdf
Whitford v. Gill Opinion.pdf
FCC Order: Responding to 2014 Public File Complaints Against Broadcasters
In response to CLC and Sunlight Foundation's 2014 complaints against broadcast stations for failing to follow public file rules, the FCC issues this order, admonishing the stations and construing the public file rules expansively, warning stations that from here on out they need to comply with these requirements.
FCC Order 2017-01-06 MB Order re 2014 political file complaints DA-17-14A1.pdf
FCC Order: Responding to 2016 Public File Complaint Against WCPO
In response to CLC and Sunlight Foundation's 2016 complaints against a Cincinnati broadcast station that failed to follow public file rules, the FCC issues this order, admonishing the stations and construing the public file rules expansively, warning the station that from here on out they need to comply with these requirements.
FCC Order 2017-01-06 MB Order re WCPO political file complaint DA-17-15A1.pdf
Gil Ramirez Group v. Houston Independent School District: Final Judgement
Final judgement in case.
Whitford remedy order and opinion (Dkt. 182).pdf
Order Denying Motion to Continue.pdf
Bethune-Hill SCOTUS Opinion.pdf
League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. Rucho: District Court Memorandum Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss
LWVNC v. Rucho Opinion Denying MTD.pdf
Perez v. Abbott: District Court Order
congress order.pdf
District Court Rejects FEC Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Calling for Investigation into Anonymous Contributions
CLC filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the FEC failed to act on five complaints calling for them to investigate donors who broke disclosure laws. The court rejected the FEC's motion to dismiss.
[Doc. 23] Opinion granting in part & denying in part MTD_3.29.2017.pdf
Campaign Legal Center v. Federal Election Commission: District Court Rejects FEC's Motion to Dismiss
The Department of Justice, lead by Jeff Sessions, had their motion to dismiss accepted by the District Court in the Texas voter ID case.
2017-04-03 [1022] Order Granting USA Motion for Voluntary Dismissal.pdf
The Supreme Court ordered a stay in Gill v. Whitford.
16A1149 Gill v. Whitford Order.pdf
Court grants plaintiffs’ motion to shorten the time on the preliminary injunction motion and requires defendants disclose to counsel for plaintiffs a list of all voter applications previously purged or denied based on convictions for the past two years on or before July 21, 2017, or show cause on or before July 13, 2017, why they should not be required to do so.
Court scheduling order on PI.pdf
The Sixth Circuit found that the case did not have standing.
Tenn Repub v. SEC_opinion.pdf
show_temp.pl_.pdf
Gil Ramirez Group v. Houston Independent School District: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas - Decision
The district court reaffirmed CLC's trial win in November in the case against a Houston ISD official who had set up a “pay to play” scheme for contractor work. The court denied their motion for a new trial and judgment as a matter of law entirely.
Order denying Motion for JNOV or New Trial.pdf
Remedy Decision 8.23.17
A federal court in Texas permanently blocked Texas latest version of its voter photo ID law, SB 5. Campaign Legal Center represents Texas voters in its challenge to the law in the case Veasey v. Abbott. Judge Ramos of the Southern District of Texas said Texas’s latest voter photo ID law, SB 5, keeps the same limited forms of photo ID required under SB 14 and therefore carries forward the same “discriminatory features” of the original SB 14 voter photo ID law.
Veasey v. Abbott Remedy Decision 8.23.17.pdf
Remedy Decision 8.23.17.pdf
Lair v. Motl: Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals - Opinion
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision made by a federal district court. This decision upheld Montana's base contribution limits as constitutional.
2017-10-23 Opinion.pdf
1 Order Assigning Three Judge Panel (Dkt. 28).pdf
2 Order Granting Consolidation (Dkt. 40).pdf
3 Opinion Denying MTD (Dkt. 50).pdf
4 Order Denying MTD (Dkt. 51)pdf.pdf
5 Denial of Stay Memorandum & Opinion (Dkt. 86).pdf
2016-05-17 Opinion.pdf
The Court filed an order and amended opinion on September 1, 2015 overturning the district court judgement.
2015-09-01 Amended Opinion and Order.pdf
1 Order Assigning Three Judge Panel (Dkt. 28) (1).pdf
On Nov. 3, 2017, the Superior Court dismissed the challenge. The result is that the public financing system will stand.
2017-11-03 Order granting City's MTD.pdf
Holmes v. FEC: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - Opinion
The DC Circuit Court issued an opinion in Holmes v. FEC, upholding the structure of FECA's contribution limits.
Holmes v. FEC - Opinion - DC En Banc Court.pdf
On December 26, 2017, a federal court denied Alabama’s motion to dismiss CLC's lawsuit. The federal court denied the motion to dismiss on many of our claims, and the case will continue to proceed in federal court toward a trial.
Doc 80 Opinion and Order 12-26-17 grant deny MTD.PDF
Opinion - NC.pdf
Stay Granted - North Carolina.pdf
On October 23, 2017, the Court issued an opinion that reversed the District Court's judgment and found that Montana's campaign contribution limits were within the realm of legislative judgments.
On February 6, 2018, the Supreme Court denied CLC's motion for an expedited oral argument.
NC Order.pdf
On March 19, 2018, the Supreme Court denied an application by the state to stay the ruling.
Stay Application Denied - Corman v. Torres.pdf
Wright v. Sumter County Board of Elections and Registration: U.S. District Court Opinion
On March 17, 2018, a U.S. District Court ruled that the Sumter County Board of Education under the Board of Elections and Registration is in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
2018-03-17 - 198 - order.pdf
The U.S. District Court rejected the plaintiffs' attempt to keep their identities secret.
Doe v. FEC mem..pdf
In Lair v. Motl, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals released an order denying the plaintiffs' request for an en banc rehearing of the case, which is a long-running challenge to Montana's campaign contribution limits.
2018-05-02 Order denying pet for rehr'g.pdf