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.