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.

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.