CLC filed a lawsuit on June 15, 2017 seeking to compel DOJ to disclose requested records that would gather information about how the DOJ reached its conclusion to rescind administration policy to phase-out private prison contracts and whether GEO Group's contributions to a Trump super PAC played a role in the decision. CLC filed the lawsuit because DOJ is unlawfully withholding these documents.

*UPDATE: The lawsuit was settled on December 7, 2017.

GEO Group is one of the nation's largest private prison companies. CLC is alleging that it made illegal contributions to a super PAC supporting Donald Trump prior to the 2016 Election. The group has since reaped enormous politial and financial benefits from these illegal contributions, most notably a new $110 million federal contract to build a 1,000-bed immigration detention center in Texas. 

Here is a timeline of events:

1. On August 19, 2016, one day after the Obama administration announced its decision to phase out federal private prison contracts like those held by GEO, GEO made a $100,000 donation to the pro-Donald Trump super PAC Rebuilding America Now. GEO received 45 percent of its annual revenue from federal contracts, and in making this contribution, GEO violated the 75-year-old ban on government contractors making political contributions.
    
2. On November 1, 2016, CLC filed a complaint with the FEC against GEO for making this $100,000 contribution, and the super PAC Rebuilding America Now, for accepting the contribution. The complaint alleges that GEO and Rebuilding America Now broke the law and the FEC must hold them accountable. If the FEC fails to take action 120 days from the filing of a complaint, complainants may sue the agency in federal court demanding action.
    
3. On December 20, 2016, CLC filed a letter with the FEC providing additional evidence that GEO contributed another $125,000 to the super PAC Rebuilding America Now, one week before the November 2016 Presidential Election. This totals $225,000 in illegal contributions from GEO to Rebuilding America Now.
    
4. On February 23, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo reversing the previous administration’s plans to phase-out the use of private prisons. On February 28, CLC sent a FOIA request to the Bureau of Prisons and Office of Inspector General at the Department of Justice (DOJ). CLC requested records of documents that mention “Rebuilding America Now,” to gather information about how the DOJ reached its conclusion to rescind administration policy to phase-out private prison contracts, and whether GEO contribution to the super PAC played any role in the decision. CLC was granted expedited processing for its FOIA request but has yet to receive any records from the DOJ.
    
5. In April 2017, the Trump Administration awarded GEO Group a new $110 million federal contract to build a 1,000-bed immigration detention center in Texas.
    
6. On May 22, CLC sent a final letter to the DOJ requesting it immediately share the documents requested by FOIA.
    
7. On June 15, CLC filed a lawsuit demanding that DOJ respond to the FOIA request immediately.

Read our blog on the result of our FOIA Request.

About the Case

In 2015, the Birmingham City Council voted to raise the local minimum wage above the federal minimum wage. In response, state legislators adopted a law requiring the entire state to use the federal minimum wage, effectively overriding the decision of the duly elected city council in Birmingham to provide workers in the city with a higher minimum wage. The Alabama NAACP, along with members of the Alabama Black Legislative Caucus and individual Birmingham residents, sued the state for intentionally discriminating against black voters under the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA).   

A federal district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit, holding that Alabama and its officials had immunity from a VRA challenge under the 11th Amendment grant of “sovereign immunity.” The court’s decision ignored the clear intent by Congress to override state sovereign immunity under the VRA, unanimous decades-long precedent holding that the VRA overrides sovereign immunity, and over one hundred years of Supreme Court precedent allowing suits against state officials regardless of sovereign immunity. The plaintiffs have appealed the court’s decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

What’s At Stake

While the 11th Amendment’s grant of sovereign immunity typically shields states from lawsuits brought by private citizens, there are two important exceptions, recognized by the Supreme Court, under which a state may be sued for violating a citizen’s federal constitutional rights. The district court ignored both of these exceptions, which are vital to citizens’ ability to vindicate their rights against unlawful state action.

First, the 14th and 15th Amendments (adopted after the 11th Amendment) expanded federal power to ensure states complied with the federal Constitution, particularly its guarantees of nondiscrimination. These amendments, passed after the Civil War to abolish slavery and grant citizens equal protection under the law and the right to vote regardless of race, gave Congress the power to override state sovereign immunity by enacting statutes that provide for private lawsuits against the states to vindicate those rights. It has long been recognized that Congress created a right for private plaintiffs to sue states in federal court under Section 2 of the VRA and this right has played a vital role in ensuring the effectiveness of the VRA as an instrument for eliminating racial discrimination in voting.

Second, even where there is sovereign immunity, the Court recognized over a hundred years ago, in a case called Ex Parte Young, that individuals may sue state officials to prevent them from enforcing state laws that violate the federal constitution. The Ex Parte Young doctrine has been critical in allowing private plaintiffs to vindicate their constitutional rights and protect themselves from unlawful and unconstitutional state action. After Shelby County invalidated the “coverage formula” in Section 4 of the VRA - which subjected states and other jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory voting laws to federal preclearance - Section 2 is the primary vehicle available for citizens to challenge states and prevent state officials from enforcing racially discriminatory voting laws.

The district court’s failure to recognize the VRA’s overriding of sovereign immunity and its further failure to correctly apply the Ex Parte Young doctrine directly contradicts Supreme Court precedent and would effectively close the courthouse door on private suits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In partnership with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Campaign Legal Center submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the plaintiffs, urging the Eleventh Circuit to correct these errors. 

About the Case

On July 24, 2012, Illinois Liberty PAC (ILP) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois challenging the constitutionality of Illinois’ state contribution limits. The case is now on its second trip up to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Importance of Contribution Limits

This lawsuit is part of a larger legal strategy among campaign finance reform opponents to undermine all campaign finance laws. Illinois’ contribution limits, like those of the 44 other states that have similar controls, are designed to protect the integrity of the democratic process. Contribution limits are one of the last remaining tools states can use to protect the health of our democracy — because limiting direct contributions to candidates has always been upheld as a vital and constitutional way to prevent quid pro quo corruption and its appearance. Even the Roberts Court has recognized as much.

ILP’s arguments would threaten base contribution limits across the country, and the district court rightly rejected them.

Case Details

Specifically, ILP challenged the $50,000 limit on contributions from political action committees to state candidates and the $5,000 limit on contributions from individuals to candidates, arguing that the law authorizes political parties and corporations to make far larger contributions than PACs and individuals, respectively, and therefore discriminates against PACs and individual donors. The district court refused to grant ILP a preliminary injunction against the law, and the appeals court affirmed that decision; the district court then upheld the limits after a trial.

Here, ILP is claiming that Illinois discriminates against individual donors and PACs by giving them lower limits than corporations and political parties. The Supreme Court has said that legislatures may consider how donations from different entities may corrupt elected officials, and create different contribution limits for each type of donor. ILP is attempting to sidestep or subvert these precedents so that individuals and PACs can donate more money to Illinois candidates and parties.

In addition to its First Amendment claim, ILP has challenged Illinois’ contribution limits under the Equal Protection Clause. This tactic, too, has become a trend among those hostile to campaign finance laws. A line of cases states that equal protection claims trigger strict scrutiny when they involve infringements of fundamental rights. ILP is bringing this claim to increase the level of scrutiny normally applied to contribution limits––something that courts have consistently said plaintiffs cannot do.

CLC has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in this case, along with the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, Common Cause Illinois, Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, and League of Women Voters Illinois.