Plaintiffs, a non‐profit corporation and a Vermont political committee, appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (William K. Sessions, III, Judge) granting summary judgment to Defendants, Vermont officials charged with enforcing Vermont elections statutes. The non‐profit corporation asserts that statutory provisions requiring identification of the speaker on any “electioneering communication,” requiring reporting of certain “mass media activities,” and defining and requiring reporting by “political committees” are void for vagueness and violate the First Amendment facially and as applied.  The Vermont political committee brings an as‐applied challenge against a provision limiting contributions to political committees. We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court concludes that the contribution limits set forth in certified questions 1, 2, and 3 cannot be constitutionally applied against SpeechNow and the individual plaintiffs. The Court further concludes that there is no constitutional infirmity in theapplication of the organizational, administrative, and reporting requirements set forth in certified questions 4 and 5. The Court also concludes that because of the decision made, as guided by Citizens United, which intervened since the entry of the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ petition for injunctive relief, the district court’s order denying injunctive relief is vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the decision.

Memorandum opinion of the three-judge district court panel. The FEC's motion for summary judgment is granted, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied, and the FEC's motion to dismiss is dismissed as moot.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal's decision. Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge Williams. The judgment of the district court is reversed.

District Court for the Southern District of California’s order granting preliminary injunction on five issues and declining it on three. 

The District Court for Eastern District of Louisiana's Order and Reasons. It is ordered that plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (Rec. Doc. 78) is denied. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify (Rec. Doc. 19) is granted in part. The questions included in the document are to be certified to the en banc panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

District Court for the District of Arizona’s order granting Plaintiffs summary judgment and finding unconstitutional the matching funds trigger provisions.

Supreme Court opinion striking down the trigger provisions. 

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion affirming the district court's decision. Before Circuit Judges Wardlaw and Fletcher and Senior District Judge Timlin. 

U.S. Supreme Court order denying petition for certiorari. 

Seventh Circuit Court's order summarily affirming the district court. The Court orders that the motion for an injunction pending appeal is denied. It is further ordered that the district court’s denial of the appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction is summarily affirmed. We agree with the district court that the appellants have not shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to contribution limits in 10 ilcs 5/9-8.5.

Memorandum Opinion granting summary judgment in favor of the FEC. On revisiting the previous decision, the Court reaches the same conclusion: Congress may constitutionally bar federal contractors from contributing to candidates, parties, and their committees.

Northern District Court of Illinois memorandum opinion and order.  Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

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.

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.

The Supreme Court's order noting probable jurisdiction.