Today, the Campaign Legal Center joined Democracy 21 in calling on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to follow its own precedent and investigate apparent campaign finance violations by Jeb Bush and his associated Super PAC, despite the fact that the former Governor is expected to announce his “candidacy” on June 15.  The letter urges DOJ to investigate whether Bush, and the Right to Rise Super PAC, are engaged in knowing and willful violations of the campaign finance laws, emphasizing that federal law gives DOJ express jurisdiction over “knowing and willful” violations.

Today’s letter reiterates a request made last month to Attorney General Loretta Lynch to exercise her statutory authority to appoint a Special Counsel to conduct the investigation and any prosecutions that the Special Counsel finds warranted.  The groups note in today’s letter that in 1996 then-Attorney General Reno established a Campaign Finance Task Force, headed by a lawyer from the San Diego U.S. Attorney’s office, to investigate allegations of illegal fundraising by both the Clinton and Dole campaigns during the 1996 presidential election.

“This is not a ‘no harm, no foul’ situation as there is a growing list of reports of what appear to be knowing and willful violations of campaign finance laws,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Campaign Legal Center Executive Director.  “Simply declaring his candidacy does not wipe the slate clean of campaign finance violations by Bush and his Super PAC.”

“FEC Commissioners have publicly admitted that they are either unwilling or unable to enforce the laws on the books, so it is up to DOJ to step in and enforce the laws passed by Congress to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption.  The ongoing pattern of apparent ‘knowing and willful’ violations of campaign finance laws by the Bush shadow campaign gives DOJ express jurisdiction under federal law.”

Hebert added: “These are not hyper-technical, minor matters.  These campaign finance violations are a way of avoiding contribution limits aimed at preventing the corruption of our elected officials.  These willful violations by Bush and the Right to Rise Super PAC strike at the very heart of our democracy.”

To read the full letter, click here.

To read the memorandum from the Clinton Justice Department, click here.

To read the earlier letter to the Attorney General, click here.

Over the past few years, efforts to dilute and suppress minority voting rights or to restrict the vote for partisan gain have spiked dramatically.  Racially-discriminatory voting laws have been passed in states and municipalities across the country, particularly in jurisdictions that no longer have to comply with a key provision of the Voting Rights Act as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision two years ago in Shelby County v. Holder.  Jurisdictions have also passed election restrictions designed to benefit one party over the other, often under the guise of improving already-efficient election procedures and preventing non-existent voter-fraud.  The Campaign Legal Center has filed suit to challenge a number of those laws and participated in other cases across the country.

The Legal Center has released an updated summary of that litigation to facilitate the tracking of those cases.  The summary includes a number of the most prominent post-Shelby cases, though more are out there.

In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the formula used to determine which states and localities would be covered under the Voting Rights Act’s “preclearance” requirement.  Since then, voting rights cases have continued to multiply, albeit under the more difficult standards of the Act’s remaining provisions—notably, the Court left intact Section 2, which blocks discriminatory voting rules nationwide, as well as Section 3, which allows courts to impose preclearance requirements on (or “bail in”) particular jurisdictions found to have discriminated against voters.  Voting rights plaintiffs are also increasingly bringing constitutional claims, such as claims that certain election rules violate the right to vote protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Despite these higher legal hurdles, the need to protect voting rights is even greater today as the threats to those rights have multiplied.  Voter photo ID laws and racial gerrymanders have produced some of the highest profile cases, but a broad range of tactics also have been applied to drive down voter turnout and eligibility generally.  The number of these new efforts has exploded as the difficulty in challenging them in court has increased.

The Legal Center’s voting rights litigation summary attests to the widespread efforts to undermine the voting rights of minority communities and the vital need to challenge these voter suppression laws in the courts. 

To read the new Legal Center updated Voting Rights litigation summary, click here.

To read the Legal Center’s recent campaign finance litigation summary, click here. 

The most recent updates of the litigation summaries are always available on the Legal Center website’s Litigation page. 

Today, four Albuquerque voters, plaintiffs in Baca v. Berry, a voting rights case currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed a motion for sanctions against the city and its attorneys for pursuing a frivolous cross-appeal in bad faith.  This cross-appeal had sought to force the voters to pay the city’s attorneys’ fees.  The voters are represented before the Tenth Circuit by the Campaign Legal Center.

The voters originally brought the case to challenge the City of Albuquerque’s redistricting plan for city council districts.  After the case was brought, Albuquerque voters passed a referendum that altered the way the city council is elected.  In light of this change in the law, the case was dismissed.  The city then sought to recover its attorneys’ fees from the voters and their attorneys.  The district court granted the city’s motion to sanction the voters’ attorneys for prolonging the case, ordering them to pay $48,000, but refused to award fees against the individual voters.  After the attorneys appealed this sanctions order to the Tenth Circuit, where they are represented by the law firm Jenner and Block, the city filed a cross-appeal seeking fees against the individual voters.  But the city presented essentially no legal argument in support of this cross-appeal and dropped the cross appeal at oral argument before the Tenth Circuit on May 6, 2015.  Rather than a good faith effort to recover its attorneys’ fees, the city’s cross-appeal was likely a bad faith attempt to intimidate civil rights plaintiffs and coerce their former attorneys into dropping their appeal.

“The City of Albuquerque and its Mayor acted shamelessly to intimidate and punish minority voters with gratuitous sanctions for attempting to safeguard their voting rights as residents of the city,” said Joshua Bone, the Legal Center attorney who argued before the Tenth Circuit.  “The city’s conduct was so reprehensible that the Albuquerque City Council passed a resolution condemning the city’s pursuit of attorneys’ fees against its own citizens.  We hope the court will see fit to rule in a manner that will dissuade other elected officials from abusing their office by bullying their own constituents and scaring them away from their recourse to the courts.”

To read the motion filed today seeking sanctions against the city, click here.

Following Citizens United, ideological and interest group opponents of campaign finance regulation have continued to flood the courts with cases challenging campaign finance laws at the federal, state and municipal levels.  The number of lawsuits across the country and the number well-funded groups bringing those suits continues to grow.

The Legal Center has released an updated summary of that litigation to facilitate the tracking of the long list of cases. 

As the litigation summary attests, campaign finance reform opponents currently are focusing their firepower on contribution limits and political disclosure laws.  Despite some high-profile victories won by reform opponents, most of their challenges have been successfully turned back.

In addition to contribution limits and disclosure laws, reform opponents have devoted significant energy to challenging laws regulating coordination between candidates and outside groups.  Pay-to-play laws around the country are also facing challenges as are laws governing the funding of judicial elections.  The Legal Center also continues to pursue litigation against the Federal Election Commission for its failure to enforce or properly implement the campaign finance laws passed by Congress.

The Legal Center’s litigation summary attests to the enormous number of active legal cases concerning campaign finance and underscores the need to remain vigilant in tracking and participating in litigation in 2015 and beyond.

To read the Legal Center’s updated campaign finance litigation summary, click here. 

A summary of the Legal Center’s voting right litigation will be released in the coming weeks.

The most recent updates of the litigation summaries are always available on the Legal Center website’s Litigation page. 

 

Today, the Campaign Legal Center joined Democracy 21 in calling on the Justice Department to investigate whether former Governor Jeb Bush and his associated Super PAC, the Right to Rise Super PAC, are engaged in knowing and willful violations of the campaign finance laws.

The groups also requested Attorney General Loretta Lynch to exercise her statutory authority to appoint a Special Counsel to conduct the investigation and any prosecutions that the Special Counsel finds warranted.

While recognizing that the dysfunctional Federal Election Commission (FEC) does not enforce the campaign finance laws, the groups also filed an FEC complaint on the matter in order to be on record with the agency.

Today’s letter to the Justice Department is the first of a series of requests the groups plan to make to the Department for investigations regarding potential knowing and willful campaign finance violations by presidential candidates and their individual-candidate Super PACs.

According to Campaign Legal Center Executive Director J. Gerald Hebert:

It is hard to conclude that laws are not being broken when you look at Jeb Bush’s actions as an ‘undeclared’ candidate and the laws on the books.  Quite clearly this is a man very actively running for President and raising tens of millions of dollars in ‘soft money’ to aid his quest. Denying he is a candidate does not exempt the former governor from obeying the law which prohibits candidates from raising and spending soft money.  While the FEC has all but declared that it will not be enforcing campaign finance laws this election cycle, that does not mean the laws passed by Congress and signed by Presidents of both parties may be ignored.

If the FEC will not do its job, then it falls to the Department of Justice to enforce the law and investigate these apparent knowing and willful pattern of violations of the law by the individuals and groups associated with Jeb Bush’s shadow campaign.

Jeb Bush is not alone in the presidential field in seeming to thumb his nose at the law and this will not be the only time we ask the Justice Department to step in to fill the breach in the laws passed by Congress in the wake of previous scandals to keep the White House and Congress off the auction block.

The letter sent by the group cites 52 U.S.C. section 30125(e)(1) of the federal campaign finance laws which states:

A candidate, individual holding Federal office, agent of a candidate or individual holding Federal office, or an entity directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained or controlled by or acting on behalf of 1 or more candidates or individuals holding Federal office, shall not —

(A) solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in connection with an election for Federal office, including funds for any Federal election activity, unless the funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act;…

52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1) (emphasis added).

The letter states:

Jeb Bush is a candidate for President. The Right to Rise Super PAC is an entity that has been established, and is being financed, maintained and controlled, by Bush and his agents.  The Super PAC is also acting on behalf of Bush.  As such, it is prohibited from raising or spending money that does not comply with Federal contribution limits and source prohibitions (i.e., “soft money”).  52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1).  Bush is likewise prohibited from raising and spending soft money through such an entity.  Id. 

As we explain below, there are powerful grounds to believe that both Bush and the Right to Rise Super PAC are violating these prohibitions and, in so doing, that they are engaged in a scheme to allow unlimited contributions to be spent directly on behalf of the Bush campaign and thereby violate the candidate contribution limits enacted to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption. 

According to the letter:

There are strong grounds to believe that Jeb Bush and the individual-candidate Super PAC supporting his campaign, the Right to Rise Super PAC, have violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e), which prohibits a candidate, and any “entity directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained or controlled by or acting on behalf of” a candidate, from raising funds that do not comply with Federal contribution limits and source prohibitions (i.e., “soft money”). 

The Right to Rise Super PAC is an entity that Bush, both directly and indirectly through his agents, has “established” and that is “acting on his behalf” for the purpose of raising and spending soft money to promote his presidential campaign.  Similarly, Bush, both directly and indirectly through his agents, has “financed,” “maintained” and “controlled” the Right to Rise Super PAC, which is “acting on his behalf” for the purpose of promoting Bush’s presidential campaign.  Accordingly, there is reason to believe that Bush is violating section 30125(e) by raising soft money for and through such an entity, and that the Right to Rise Super PAC is violating section 30125(e) by raising and spending soft money on behalf of Bush.

Bush is a Candidate

Despite the claims that Bush is not a candidate because he has not declared his candidacy, the letter from the groups documented that the Bush claims are contradicted by the facts and by the applicable law.

According to the letter:

Although to date he has publicly claimed otherwise, Jeb Bush is a “candidate” for the Republican nomination for President in the 2016 election.  He has received contributions or made expenditures aggregating $5,000 or more for purposes of seeking that nomination.  52 U.S.C. § 30101(2).

The fact of his candidacy is so apparent, and so overt, that Bush himself has found it hard to maintain what is really the ongoing charade of his purported non-candidacy. According to one published report:

Jeb Bush finally said what everybody knows – that he’s running for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.  Then he tried to take it back.

“I’m running for president in 2016, and the focus is going to be about how we, if I run, how do you create high sustained economic growth,” Bush said in a video posted by NBC News.

The apparent declaration comes as Bush has been dodging the question of whether he’s a real candidate or is pursuing a strategy of running without saying so, to allow him to coordinate with his Right to Rise Super PAC and the dark money Right to Rise Policy Solutions.^[1]

The letter further stated:

In all pertinent respects, Bush has been engaging in activities as an active candidate at least since January 2015.  He has been traveling extensively to early primary states since January 2015, and has been speaking and organizing in those states.  For instance, according to one published report:

For months, Bush has been privately wooing top New Hampshire Republicans in a flurry of phone calls, emails, private meetings, and even hand-scribbled thank-you notes.  He has met with top state legislators, local mayors, and, in particular, dialed up a long list of Mitt Romney's old hands here.

Bush already has three strategists laying the groundwork in the state: Killion; Rob Varsalone, a former top adviser to Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte; and Nate Lamb, a field director for Sen. Scott Brown's failed 2014 campaign.  In addition, Ryan Williams, a former Romney operative who has worked for the New Hampshire Republican Party, is helping the Bush team through his firm, FP1 Strategies.^[2]

Bush has also been heavily involved in fundraising for the Right to Rise Super PAC, which is raising funds solely for the purpose of making expenditures to further Bush’s presidential campaign.  An individual becomes a “candidate” if the individual raises “funds in excess of what could reasonably be expected to be used for exploratory activities or undertakes activities designed to amass campaign funds that would be spent after he or she becomes a candidate….”  11 C.F.R. § 100.72(b). 

By these standards, Bush is a “candidate.”  The fact that he has refrained from formally announcing his candidacy is not determinative.  If Bush is raising and spending money as a candidate, he is a candidate under the law, whether or not he declares himself to be one.

Further grounds for concluding that Bush is a “candidate” pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2) are set forth in a complaint filed with the FEC on March 31, 2015 by the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21.  That complaint is attached and incorporated herein by reference.

The Bush Scheme Violates the Campaign Finance Laws

The letter spelled out the case for why the Bush scheme violates the campaign finance laws. The letter stated:

Individual-candidate Super PACs, such as the Right to Rise Super PAC, provide a means for donors to evade and circumvent the candidate contributions limits.  The Federal Election Campaign Act limits to $2,700 the size of a contribution that a presidential candidate or his authorized campaign committee can accept from an individual donor.  52 U.S.C § 30116(a)(1).  FECA also prohibits a corporation or labor union from making a contribution to a presidential candidate.  52 U.S.C. § 30118(a).  Individual-candidate Super PACs, which are devoted to promoting the election of a single candidate, serve as ready vehicles for eviscerating these candidate contribution limits that were enacted to prevent corruption.

The campaign finance laws contain provisions to prevent the circumvention of the basic $2,700 candidate contribution limits.  By providing a vehicle for wealthy donors to make contributions on behalf of a specific candidate that directly benefits that candidate, but where such contributions do not comply with the Federal contribution limits, individual-candidate Super PACs such as the Right to Rise Super PAC operate in violation of the contribution limits and the anti-circumvention protections of the law.

Section 30125(e)(1) states:

A candidate, individual holding Federal office, agent of a candidate or individual holding Federal office, or an entity directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained or controlled by or acting on behalf of 1 or more candidates or individuals holding Federal office, shall not —

(A) solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in connection with an election for Federal office, including funds for any Federal election activity, unless the funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act;…

52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1) (emphasis added).

This prohibition is broadly drafted.  It applies to any candidate for Federal office or federal officeholder or to any “agent” of a candidate or of an officeholder, as well as to any “entity directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained or controlled by or acting on behalf of” a candidate or officeholder.  Id.  Such candidates, officeholders, agents and entities cannot “solicit, receive, direct, transfer or spend funds in connection with an election for Federal office” unless those funds comply with the contribution limits and prohibitions, and reporting requirements, of Federal law.  Id.

***

Section 30125(e) prohibits any entity that is “directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained or controlled by or acting on behalf of” a Federal candidate from soliciting, receiving, directing or spending contributions that do not comply with the Federal contribution limits and source prohibitions.

Jeb Bush is a “candidate” within the meaning of FECA, notwithstanding the fact that he has not yet made a formal announcement of his candidacy and notwithstanding his claims that he is not a candidate. 

The Right to Rise Super PAC has been “directly or indirectly” “established” by Jeb Bush.  The Super PAC has been established by agents and associates of Jeb Bush and is organized for the sole purpose of promoting Bush’s presidential campaign. 

The Right to Rise Super PAC has been “directly or indirectly” “financed” by Jeb Bush.  Bush has attended multiple fundraisers for the Super PAC and has solicited funds for the Super PAC. 

The Right to Rise Super PAC has been “directly or indirectly” “maintained or controlled” by Jeb Bush.  Bush and his agents are directly involved in making decisions about both the staffing of the Super PAC and the allocation of tasks to the Super PAC and as between the Super PAC and the official Bush campaign.  Bush’s close associates, former staff and political operatives are working with or for the Super PAC, and are in discussions with the Super PAC and with Bush about whether to assume formal leadership roles for the Super PAC.

***

The Right to Rise Super PAC is also “directly or indirectly”  “acting on behalf of” Jeb Bush.  The sole purpose of the Super PAC is to promote the election of Bush as president.  The Super PAC is being operated as an arm of the Bush political operation and is acting in concert with Bush and his agents for the common objective of promoting Bush’s candidacy.

***

Accordingly, the Right to Rise Super PAC is an entity “directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained or controlled or acting on behalf of” Jeb Bush and his campaign within the meaning of section 30125(e).  Thus, the Right to Rise Super PAC has violated section 30125(e) by soliciting, receiving and spending contributions that do not comply with the Federal contribution limits and source prohibitions.  Similarly, Jeb Bush has violated section 30125(e) by soliciting, receiving, directing and spending contributions through the Right to Rise Super PAC that do not comply with the Federal contribution limits and source prohibitions.

Justice Department Investigation and Special Counsel

According to the letter:

Although the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has exclusive jurisdiction over civil enforcement of the campaign finance laws, 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a), the Department of Justice has its own separate responsibility to enforce the campaign finance laws against “knowing and willful” violations.  52 U.S.C. § 30109(d); see generally Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses (7^th ed. May 2007) (DOJ Handbook). 

The letter cited three considerations that support an investigation by the Justice Department into the activities involved in the Bush scheme:

First, these activities concern potential violations of the limits and source prohibitions on contributions to Federal candidates, provisions that the Department considers to be at the “heartland” of the campaign finance laws. 

*****

Second, the scale of the potential violation here is massive and certainly warrants the attention of the Department. 

******

Third, the FEC is widely recognized today as a dysfunctional enforcement agency that is repeatedly left paralyzed by a 3 to 3 split among its members, which results in deadlock and agency inaction on enforcement matters.  

According to the letter:

In light of the effective collapse of the civil enforcement system as a result of the paralysis of the FEC, it is essential for the Department to exercise its concurrent jurisdiction to enforce the criminal provisions of the campaign finance laws.  E.g., Handbook at 177 (“Criminal prosecution under FECA can be pursued before civil and administrative remedies are exhausted.”)

The letter also pointed out that since this case involves potentially serious violations of the campaign finance laws by a leading Republican Party presidential candidate and that candidate’s associated individual-candidate Super PAC, the Department would have a conflict of interest and the appearance of such in conducting this investigation. The letter stated:

Accordingly, both the public interest and Justice Department regulations require you to invoke the procedures set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 600.1 et seq. to appoint a Special Counsel from outside the Department to assume responsibility on behalf of the Department for handling this matter.  …

By taking this position, we do not impugn the integrity of any official in the Department.  Nor do we believe as a general matter that an Attorney General appointed by the President of one political party is incapable of investigating candidates or political committees of the opposing party.  But this matter presents extraordinary circumstances because it involves a leading Republican presidential candidate, because the timing of this activity is at the beginning of the 2016 presidential campaign, and because very large amounts of illegal contributions involved.

The letter concluded:

Under the circumstances involved in this case, you should exercise your authority under section 600.1 of the Department’s regulations to appoint a Special Counsel to undertake an investigation of whether Bush and the Right to Rise Super PAC have violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1) by accepting contributions or making expenditures with funds raised in excess of the applicable limits set forth in 52 U.S.C. §§ 30116(a)(1) and 11 C.F.R. §§ 110.3, and if so, to take appropriate prosecutorial and remedial measures.

 

To read the full letter, click here.

Today in Lair v. Bullock, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that struck down Montana’s political campaign contribution limits.  The Ninth Circuit panel remanded the case to the district court on the ground that the district court applied the incorrect standard in analyzing the Montana’s limits.

The district court had permanently enjoined Montana’s limits on contributions from individuals, PACs and political party committees to state candidates on the basis that the limits are unconstitutionally low.  

In July 2014, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Common Cause, Justice at Stake and the League of Women Voters, filed an amici brief in the case urging the Ninth Circuit to overturn the lower court ruling.  The brief emphasized that the district court disregarded both Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent to overturn Montana’s limits on contributions to state candidates, including candidates for judicial election.

“We are relieved that today’s decision preserves Montana’s contribution limits, which continue to act as vital protections against corruption and the appearance of corruption in state politics,” said Megan P. McAllen, Campaign Legal Center Associate Counsel.  “Montana has a long and unhappy history, dating to the age of the Copper Barons, of its richest citizens buying official action in Helena with massive campaign contributions.  Today’s decision staves off a return to that era.”

To read the opinion, click here.

To read the full brief, click here. 

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Hawaii’s contractor contribution ban and disclosure regulations in Yamada v. Snipes.  Plaintiff-Appellant A-1 A-Lectrician, Inc. (A-1), a government contractor, sought to overturn Hawaii’s pay-to-play law, as well as to invalidate a range of disclosure requirements applicable to independent spending in state elections.  The Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus brief with the Court in defense of Hawaii’s laws.

The Yamada case is part of a continuing flood of challenges to a broad range of campaign finance laws at the federal, state and local levels.  Courts nationwide have recognized that disclosure and pay-to-play laws like Hawaii’s serve important anticorruption and informational interests and have overwhelmingly upheld similar laws on those grounds. 

“The Court clearly recognized that contractor contributions pose a very real potential for corruption, and this contractor sought not only to strike down the ban itself, but also to do away with any disclosure of its independent spending in support of candidates — thus raising the threat significantly,” said Megan P. McAllen, Legal Center Associate Counsel.  “The ‘dark money’ political spending proposed by A-1 would further undermine the public’s trust in its elected officials and hide the sources of the money spent to elect them.”

To read the Court’s opinion, click here.

To read the Campaign Legal Center’s brief, click here.

Today, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21 and Public Citizen, filed an amici brief in Independence Institute v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to dismiss a challenge to the federal “electioneering communications” disclosure provisions upheld by the Supreme Court in its 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC.

“As it did in the lower court, Independence Institute is attempting to relitigate the Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision in Citizens United to uphold this exact disclosure law,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “It argues that disclosure laws can reach no further than communications that are the ‘functional equivalent of express advocacy.’  But the Supreme Court has specifically considered and rejected this contention, holding instead that the public has a broad interest in knowing the identities of those financing candidate advertising directly before the election.”

Independence Institute sought to run a broadcast ad referring to Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) shortly before Election Day 2014 without disclosing its donors.  The challenged law requires such disclosure when groups spend more than $10,000 on “electioneering communications”—defined as any television or radio ad that mentions the name of a federal candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election.  Congress enacted the “electioneering communications” disclosure law as part of the McCain-Feingold Act to curb widespread evasion of earlier disclosure requirements that applied only to “express advocacy” ads.  Since then, the Supreme Court has twice upheld the “electioneering communications” disclosure requirements: first in McConnell v. FEC (2003) in a facial challenge, and again in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in an as-applied challenge nearly identical to the current lawsuit.

 

To read the brief, click here.

To read the district court’s opinion, click here.