Opinion read by Circuit Judge Brown. As such, the Court rejects Plaintiffs Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) challenge arguing that aggregate limits are unconstitutional. 

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturns the District Court decision.

Opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals before Judges Tatel and Griffith and Senior Circuit Judge Williams. Judge Tatel filed the opinion with Judge Williams filing a dissenting opinion.

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denying a request to stay the District Court ruling.

Court grants plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denies defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. The Court also denies intervenor-defendant Hispanic Leadership Fund’s motion to dismiss and intervenor-defendant Center for Individual Freedom’s cross motion for summary judgment. 

By cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties ask the Court to determine the constitutionality of various provisions of the Texas Election Code that provide a private cause of action against persons and corporations who violate Texas campaign finance laws.

Plaintiff-Appellant, Free Speech, appeals the district court’s dismissal of the complaint it filed in July 2012, alleging certain regulations and practices of Defendant-Appellee, the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), violate its rights under the First Amendment. After careful review of the appellate filings, the district court’s order, and the entire record, the three-judge panel affirmed the dismissal for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.

The Supreme Court's order noting probable jurisdiction.

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). 

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.

Plaintiff Independence Institute, a Colorado non-profit organization, brought this action against Defendant Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief declaring that the disclosure provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”) are unconstitutional as applied to a specific radio advertisement that Plaintiff plans to run before the November 4, 2014, federal elections. Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s [3] Application for a Three Judge Court and Plaintiff’s [5] Motion for Preliminary Injunction. In the interest of expediting the resolution of this action, the parties agreed that the Court would rule on the merits of the Complaint as opposed to the preliminary injunction. Upon consideration of the pleadings,1 the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions. Plaintiff’s claims are foreclosed by clear United States Supreme Court precedent, principally by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). See id. at 366-71. Having considered the merits of this dispute, the Court enters JUDGMENT for Defendant. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED in its entirety.

Upon consideration of the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Stay Consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 10, and the plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 7, the related legal memoranda in support and in opposition, the declarations attached thereto, and the entire record herein, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that, because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the defendant’s Motion to Stay Consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction are DENIED as moot; and it is further

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. Judges McKeown and Murguia did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.

Opinion by Chief Judge Wood and Circuit Judges Bauer and Easterbrook.

Chief Justice Roberts, delivered the opinion of the Court. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, joined that opinion in full, and Ginsburg joined except as to Part II. Breyer filed a concurring opinion. Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Breyer, joined as to Part II. Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas joined. Kennedy, and Alito, filed dissenting opinions. 

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment in an action brought by two individuals and a Hawaii for-profit corporation, A-1 A-Lectrician, Inc., challenging the constitutionality of Hawaii’s campaign finance laws.