Filter by Type
Filter by Issue Area
Filter by Document Type
Filter by Case/Action Status
The transcript of telephonic oral ruling on Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction before the Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl, a United States District Court Judge.
Comments of CLC Senior Counsel Paul S. Ryan regarding proposed regulations covering earmarking, affiliation, joint fundraising, disclosure, and other issues.
The New York Republican State Committee and the Tennessee Republican Party seek declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating and enjoining the defendant, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), from enforcing an SEC regulation, which was adopted over four years ago and codified at 17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)–5 (the “Challenged Rule”). Compl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 1.1 The Commission counters that this case “was filed in the wrong court at the wrong time by the wrong plaintiff,” Def.’s Opp’n Mot. Prelim. Inj. at 1 (“Def.’s Opp’n), ECF No. 18, and should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Def.’s Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 10. The Court agrees with the Commission: The plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden in establishing subject matter jurisdiction because this Court is not the proper forum for their challenge.
Brief in which McCutcheon discussed whether the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act’s aggregate limits on the total amount that an individual may contribute to all federal candidates, political party committees, and other political committees during a two-year federal election cycle, 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(3)(A)-(B), violate the First Amendment.
The attached summary catalogues all cases challenging disclosure laws in which decisions were issued following the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Contrary to the claims of anti-reform advocates, a review of this litigation reveals that in over 90% of these cases, the courts affirmed the constitutionality of the challenged political disclosure law, in whole or at least in part.
The attached chart catalogues all cases challenging disclosure laws in which decisions were issued following the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Contrary to the claims of anti-reform advocates, a review of this litigation reveals that in over 90% of these cases, the courts affirmed the constitutionality of the challenged political disclosure law, in whole or at least in part.
The brief asserted that the challenged regulation, 11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9), should be invalidated as unreasonable under Chevron Step Two, and under the arbitrary and capricious standard.
Answers whether the district court correctly held that the ban on federal campaign contributions by all federal contractors in 2 U.S.C. § 441c satisfies the First Amendment as applied to contractors who are individuals. Also, whether the district court correctly held that 2 U.S.C. § 441c as applied to individual federal contractors satisfies the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.
Answers question of whether 2 U.S.C. § 441c, as applied to individuals such as plaintiffs, but not to others similarly situated, violate the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Also, whether 2 U.S.C. § 441c, as applied to individuals such as plaintiffs, violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Answers the question as to whether Congress’s decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. 1973c, under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the VRA, 42 U.S.C. 1973b(b), exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.
Summary of the argument stating that the appeal should be dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. In the alternative, the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.
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).
FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the "Expansion of Online Public File Obligations to Cable and Satellite TV Operators and Broadcast and Satellite Radio Licensees".
Judge Robert E. Blackburn denies both motion for preliminary injunction and the motion for temporary restraining order.
The District Court for the District of Coumbia's ruling on the FEC’s regulations implementing disclosure laws.
The requirements that Mississippi has enacted in Chapter 17 of the Mississippi Code 14 survive Plaintiffs’ facial challenge. Plaintiffs’ as-applied and facial constitutional challenges therefore fail. Accordingly, the court reverses the district court and renders judgment in favor of Defendants.
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.
The Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, and Sunlight Foundation (CLC, et al.) file this complaint regarding violations of the Communications Act and the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC’s”) regulations by WJLA-TV.