The Eastern District Court of Virginia finds that the ripeness and standing jurisdictional requirements are met and some, but not all, of the advertisements at issue are "electioneering communications" subject to FECA's disclosure requirements.

Order given in the Eastern District of Virginia. It is ordered that HLF's request for an injunction is denied and that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment pursuant to Rule 58, Fed.R.Civ.P., in accordance with this Order, and to place this matter among the ended causes.

Advisory opinion written by the FEC to Marc Elias and Kate Keane of Perkins Coie LLP. The FEC is responding to their request concerning the application of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (“the Act”), and Commission regulations to the solicitation of funds by Members of Congress on behalf of the Trust. The Commission concludes that the Trust‟s proposed activities are not in connection with an election and therefore Members of Congress may solicit funds on behalf of the Trust that do not comply with the Act‟s amount limitations and source prohibitions.

The panel affirmed in part the district court’s summary judgment and dismissed in part the appeal as non-justiciable in an action challenging California’s Political Reform Act of 1974, which requires political committees to report certain information about their contributors to the State, specifically, semi-annual disclosures identifying those individuals who have contributed more than $100 during or after a campaign, in addition to each contributor’s address, occupation and employer.

Plaintiff Democratic Governors Association (“DGA”) has moved to preliminarily enjoin the operation of sections 9-601b(a)(2) and 9-601c(c) of the Connecticut General Statutes. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 10). Defendants Michael J. Brandi, Anthony J. Castagno, Salvatore Bramante, Patricia Stanekevicius, Stephen Penny, and Michael J. Ajello, all in their official capacities as officials of Connecticut’s State Elections Enforcement Commission (“SEEC”); George Jepsen, in his official capacity as Connecticut Attorney General; and Kevin T. Kane, in his official capacity as Connecticut’s Chief State’s Attorney, oppose the Motion, and have moved to dismiss DGA’s Complaint.1 Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Defs.’ Opp.”) (Doc. No. 28); Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”) (Doc. No. 27). For the reasons stated below, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and the Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.  

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.

Opinion of the three-judge court, with the Court Opinion filed by Circuit Judge Kavanaugh. The Court concludes that the new South Carolina law does not have a discriminatory retrogressive effect, as compared to the benchmark of South Carolina’s pre-existing law. They also conclude that Act R54 was not enacted for a discriminatory purpose.

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