Source: http://blogcabinla.blogspot.com/2011_10_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2017-06-28 17:17:25
Document Index: 650717330

Matched Legal Cases: ['§319', '§319', '§319', '§319', '§403', '§437', '§319']

BlogCabin KevinAndDon's Life As Republicans: 10/01/2011 - 11/01/2011
DAVIS v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM?N | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute
Interesting how the Obama Administration and the Supreme Court both agree that Don't Ask Don't Tell is moot but they have given birth to a Gay Rights Industrial Complex because DADT is far from moot. In fact it is not dead because the issue is with benefits under code and more than merely being able to serve. When it comes to standing and mootness, here is what the Supreme Court had to recently say:
Like the District Court, we must first ensure that we have jurisdiction to hear Davis’ appeal. Article III restricts federal courts to the resolution of cases and controversies. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 64 (1997) . That restriction requires that the party invoking federal jurisdiction have standing—the “personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation.” Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 189 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). But it is not enough that the requisite interest exist at the outset. “To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, ‘an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.’ ” Arizonans for Official English, supra, at 67. The FEC argues that Davis’ appeal fails to present a constitutional case or controversy because Davis lacks standing and because his claims are moot. We address each of these issues in turn.
As noted, the requirement that a claimant have “standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992) ; see also Arizonans for Official English, supra, at 64. To qualify for standing, a claimant must present an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged behavior; and likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling. Lujan, supra, at 560–561.
The fact that Davis has standing to challenge §319(b) does not necessarily mean that he also has standing to challenge the scheme of contribution limitations that applies when §319(a) comes into play. “[S]tanding is not dispensed in gross.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U. S. 343, n. 6 (1996). Rather, “a plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press” and “ ‘for each form of relief’ ” that is sought. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 352 (2006) (quoting Friends of Earth, supra, at 185).
While the proof required to establish standing increases as the suit proceeds, see Lujan, supra, at 561, the standing inquiry remains focused on whether the party invoking jurisdiction had the requisite stake in the outcome when the suit was filed. Friends of Earth, supra, at 180; Arizonans for Official English, supra, at 68, n. 22. As noted above, the injury required for standing need not be actualized. A party facing prospective injury has standing to sue where the threatened injury is real, immediate, and direct. Los Angeles v.Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 102 (1983) ; see also Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U. S. 289, 298(1979) (A plaintiff may challenge the prospective operation of a statute that presents a realistic and impending threat of direct injury). Davis faced such an injury from the operation of §319(a) when he filed suit. Davis had declared his candidacy and his intent to spend more than $350,000 of personal funds in the general election campaign whose onset was rapidly approaching. Section 319(a) would shortly burden his expenditure of personal funds by allowing his opponent to receive contributions on more favorable terms, and there was no indication that his opponent would forgo that opportunity. Indeed, the record at summary judgment indicated that most candidates who had the opportunity to receive expanded contributions had done so. App. 89. In these circumstances, we conclude that Davis faced the requisite injury from §319(a) when he filed suit and has standing to challenge that provision’s asymmetrical contribution scheme.
The FEC’s mootness argument also fails. This case closely resembles Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. ___ (2007). There, Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL), a nonprofit, ideological advocacy corporation, wished to run radio and TV ads within 30 days of the 2004 Washington primary, contrary to a restriction imposed by BCRA. WRTL sued the FEC, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Although the suit was not resolved before the 2004 election, we rejected the FEC’s claim of mootness, finding that the case “fit comfortably within the established exception to mootness for disputes capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 8). That “exception applies where ‘(1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration; and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Spencer v.Kemna, 523 U. S. 1, 17 (1998) ).
In WRTL, “despite BCRA’s command that the cas[e] be expedited ‘to the greatest possible extent,’ ” WRTL’s claims could not reasonably be resolved before the election concluded. 551 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8) (quoting §403(a)(4), 116Stat. 113, note following 2 U. S. C. §437h). Similarly, in this case despite BCRA’s mandate to expedite and Davis’ request that his case be resolved before the 2004 general election season commenced, Davis’ case could not be resolved before the 2006 election concluded, demonstrating that his claims are capable of evading review.
As to the second prong of the exception, even though WRTL raised an as-applied challenge, we found its suit capable of repetition where “WRTL credibly claimed that it planned on running ‘materially similar’ future” ads subject to BCRA’s prohibition and had, in fact, sought an injunction that would permit such an ad during the 2006 election. 551 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 9) (some internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the FEC conceded in its brief that Davis’ §319(a) claim would be capable of repetition if Davis planned to self-finance another bid for a House seat. Brief for Appellee 14, 20–21, and n. 5. Davis subsequently made a public statement expressing his intent to do so. See Reply Brief 16 (citing Terreri, Democrat Davis Confirms He’ll Run Again for Congress, Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Mar. 27, 2008, p. 5B). As a result, we are satisfied that Davis’ facial challenge is not moot. 6
As a Commentator for The Huffington Post with my own Facebook post to feature and a Twitter Tweet button, I had to comment Sunday morning, October 2, 2011 after reading that President Obama was honored at the Human Right Campaign's Dinner on Saturday, October 1, 2011.
This is what is up on The Huff:The Demise of DADTCommented Oct 2, 2011 at 12:57:36 in Politics
“I sincerely HOPE that the intelligen­t readers of the HUFF do not think DADT is over. POTUS this week merely made it a divisive political issue for the 2012 race to rally the LGBT base. Actually, the president destabiliz­ed Military Service for OUT lgbt servicemem­bers. The Supreme Court was going to determine if DADT was constituti­onal. Obama said since he repealed the law commonly know as DADT was repealed, that the ruling on its Constituti­onality was not necessary. POTUS had the appeal was dismissed. Readers should take away this knowledge from what I have written. It is that without the ruling, #DADT is still a constituti­onal law. The GOP promises to "reinstate DADT if elected in 2012" is not hollow. In fact it makes me make the following warning, "service members come out at their own risk." Welcome to the new political industry I name "THE DADT INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX" primarily for a tool for political fundraisin­g.” Seriously, the President of the United States betrayed the #LGBT community because he had the Court dismiss the last remaining appeal as to whether DADT was constitutional. Without a ruling in our favor DADT can now be used by both parties as a fund raising tool. "Vote for me to reinstate DADT" or "Vote for me to stop the repeal of DADT." A ruling finding that DADT was always unconstitutional under the Bill of Rights (regardless of whether the theory is Equal Protection, Due Process, or Freedom of Speech) would have helped service members discharged under DADT. Now, well, I am asking you to think about it. "Should the LGBT Community support a lawsuit with Service members discharged under DADT as the plaintiffs for some type of ruling that their discharges were unconstitutional?" THINK ABOUT IT
Here is what Chris Geidner had to say about it:
The Ninth Circuit panel -- made up of circuit judges Arthur L. Alarcin, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, and Barry G. Silverman -- issued the decision per curiam, meaning the decision was issued for the court and not in the name of any particular judge. Once the court decided to dismiss the case because of the repeal of 10 U.S.C. 654 -- the DADT statute -- the decision did not address the underlying issue at trial of the constitutionality of DADT. In the LCR statement, R. Clarke Cooper, the group's executive director, said, "The ruling in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States is the reason why Congress finally acted to end this failed and unconstitutional policy. This decision by the Ninth Circuit denies more than 14,000 discharged gay and lesbian servicemembers an important means of obtaining justice for the wrong perpetuated against them under the ban, and leaves open the possibility of future violations of service members' rights.
Here is what Joe My God had to say about it:
Ninth Circuit Court Dismisses LCR Appeal To Have DADT Declared Unconstitutional Saying that the issue was rendered moot by last week's implementation of the legislative repeal of DADT, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court's ruling that the law was unconstitutional. That case was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, who have continued to press the issue should another administration attempt to reinstall the law.
What do you have to say about it. Please Tweet your response to me at @CA90046 #StopDADTreinstatement Posted by