D.C. District Court scheduling order, with dates that each party must file their briefs and documents. 

Supreme Court opinion on Citizens United. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.

Western District of Washington District Court order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. 

Order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denying defendant-appellee’s petition for rehearing. 

Decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

Southern District of Ohio District Court’s order.Plaintiff’s Motion to consolidate the preliminary injunction as to with a trial on the merits, as to these issues, is granted. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is granted in part and denied in part. 

D.C. District Court’s memorndum opinion and order. The Court orders that the government's request for discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) is denied; and it is further ordered that the government and defendant-intervenors shall file an opposition to Shelby County's motion for summary judgment by not later than November 15, 2010; Shelby County may file a reply in support of its motion by not later than December 15, 2010.

Plaintiff, Ohio Right to Life Society and Ohio Elections Commission determine that the issues expressly set forth in this Consent Decree are severable from the other issues that remain pending in this case. In addition, the Parties agree that there is no just reason for delay in entering final judgment as to the issues and claims set forth in the Consent Decree.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision before Chief Judge Jones and Circuit Judges King, Jolly, Davis, Smith, Wiener, Garza, Benavides, Stewart, Dennis, Clement, Prado, Owen, Elrod, Southwick, and Haynes. The Court finds that none of the challenged provisions unconstitutionally infringe upon the rights of the Plaintiffs to engage in political debate and discussion.

District Court’s order granting leave to plaintiff to file the amended complaint. The Court believes that the most appropriate action under the scenario is to grant the motion to amend and to permit Defendants to challenge, should they so choose, the Amended Verified Complaint by way of a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 65) is granted. Because Defendants’ motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds (Doc. 56) does not address the additional facts in the amended complaint, which arguably cure any jurisdictional deficiency, it is denied as moot.

District Court of Connecticut’s Permanent Injunction order given by District Judge Stefan R. Underhill. Judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiffs Green Party of Connecticut, S. Michael DeRosa, and the Libertarian Party with respect to counts two and three because the CEP’s excess and independent expenditure trigger provisions burden the plaintiffs’ First Amendment speech rights. Judgment is also entered in favor of the plaintiffs the ACL, Barry Williams, Anne C. Robinson, Elizabeth Gallo, Joanne P. Phillips, Roger C. Vann with respect to the claims in count four that the Connecticut Campaign Finance Reform Act (“CFRA”)’s prohibition of lobbyists making and soliciting campaign contributions, and state contractors soliciting campaign contributions, violates the First Amendment.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the constitutionality of the lobbyist and state contractor contribution restrictions. The February 11, 2009 partial judgment of the District Court on Count Four of this action is affirmed in part and reversed in part as set forth in sections (1) through (7) of the conclusion. The cause is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with the instructions set forth in section (8) of the conclusion. 

Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the constitutionality of Connecticut’s public financing program. 

Summary disposition affirming judgment. 

Decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Opinion given by Judge Fisher. The Court holds that § 441f prohibits straw donor contributions, in which a defendant solicits others to donate to a candidate for federal office in their own names and furnishes the money for the gift either through an advance or a prearranged reimbursement. The Court further holds that the indictment against O’Donnell is sufficient. Accordingly, the district court’s order dismissing counts one and two of the indictment is reversed, and the case is remanded.

Supreme Court order to stay the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the constitutionality of Arizona’s public financing program. 

Opinion for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirming for the reasons indicated by the district court and for the reasons that the First Circuit in National Organization for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1635 (2012), rejected the same challenges. Furthermore, with respect to Plaintiff’s overbreadth challenge regarding disclosure requirements, Part IV of the majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), is controlling.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. The Government appeals the district court’s grant of William P. Danielczyk, Jr. and Eugene R. Biagi’s (the "Appellees") motion to dismiss count four and paragraph 10(b) of the indictment, alleging that they conspired to and did facilitate direct contributions to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign in violation of 2 U.S.C. § 441b(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 ("FECA"), and 18 U.S.C. § 2.1 The district court reasoned that in light of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), § 441b(a) is unconstitutional as applied to the Appellees. The Courts disagrees for the following reasons in the document and thus reverses the district court’s grant of the motion to dismiss count four and paragraph 10(b) of the indictment.

A Civil Minute Oral Ruling sheet with a telephonic order. The Court finds the Plaintiff has failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its action and is not entitled to a preliminary injunction therefore the Plaintiff's motion is denied.