Filter by Type
Filter by Issue Area
Filter by Document Type
On May 21, 2019, the en banc D.C. Circuit rejected all three of the Libertarian Party’s constitutional challenges to the federal contribution limits, finding that the First Amendment does not require “as applied” exceptions from facially valid contribution limits for supposedly non-corruptive bequests, and upholding the higher special-purpose “cromnibus” limits as a valid “tweak in Congress’s decades-long project to fine-tune” our campaign finance laws. The decision reaffirms that contribution limits are permissible preventative anti-corruption measures and that courts should defer to Congress’s empirical judgments about where precisely to set the dollar amounts of such limits.
In August 2017, CLC received a series of documents in response to a FOIA request regarding the Pence-Kobach Commission. United States District Judge Amy Berman Jackson is now ordering the government to release the names of three individuals that were selectively redacted by the government in an email that played a role in the formation of the Pence-Kobach Commission.
Today the 5th Circuit affirmed the multi-million dollar verdict in the corruption case in Houston that CLC tried with Texas attorney Chad Dunn in 2016.
On February 28, 2019, the United States General Services Administration (GSA) settled with the Campaign Legal Center (CLC). CLC sued the GSA over its refusal to release travel information in response to CLC's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. GSA agreed to pay CLC $33,000 in attorney fees.
The judge ordered Texas counties not to remove any person from the current voter registration list until authorized by the court.
The Supreme Court granted North Carolina's emergency application to stay the decision by the lower court, which struck down its maps and ordered them to be redrawn.
On February 6, 2018, the Supreme Court denied CLC's motion for an expedited oral argument. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor would grant the motion.
On July 31, 2018, the Michigan State Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Michigan redistricting ballot initiative case. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, allowing the redistricting measure to be voted on by Michigan's citizens in November, 2018.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania entered an order in the Pennsylvania gaming industry campaign contribution restriction case. The court is striking down a Pennsylvania law that bars casino owners and others with a stake in the gambling industry from donating to political campaigns in the state.
The Supreme Court of the State of Washington entered an order in Seattle's public financing system case after finding that the case warrants direct review under the cited statute.
On Friday, January 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it was taking two partisan gerrymandering challenges, out of North Carolina and Maryland. Oral arguments were scheduled for March 2019.
On January 4th the Court issued an opinion and order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted narrow relief from Gwinnett County's policy of rejecting absentee ballots solely on the basis of an omitted or incorrect birth year.
The district court in Maine denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the results of the election conducted using Ranked Choice Voting.
Today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a split decision in this case. The district court had previously upheld all four provisions. In this decision, the judges upheld all but one of those provisions.
The Court denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and further declared it as moot.
The Court denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and further classified it as moot.
The Court issued this denial of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay. The Court stated that due to legal and factual differences between the Plaintiffs' claims and Whitford the Court noted that staying the proceedings would not advance the interests of those involved.
The Court issued this order that appointed a three-judge panel to preside over the case.