Filter by Type
Filter by Issue Area
Filter by Document Type
Filter by Case/Action Status
Amicus brief for the Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches, Austin Branch of the NAACP, and Nathaniel Lesane. Amici argued that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.
Brief on behalf of the Federal Appellee. It is argued that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.
Amicus brief by Appellee Travis County. Amicus argues that the district court judgment should be affirmed.
Amicus brief by Mountain States Legal Foundation in support of Appellant. Amicus argues that the Court’s thorough and thoughtful test in Boerne for determining the constitutionality of legislation enacted by Congress pursuant to its remedial Enforcement Clause powers serves as the basis for this Court’s ruling. Thus, the Court should reverse the district court panel’s decision and hold Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, as reenacted in 2006, unconstitutional in excess of Congress’s powers under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment.
Amicus brief by Governor Riley of Alabama in support of neither party. Governor Riley argues that the Court should consider §5’s burden on a fully-covered state, as well as the changes in Alabama’s government and voting record since 1965.
Amicus brief field by Nathaniel Persily, Stephen Ansolabehere, and Charles Stewart III on behalf of neither party. Amici find that by their studies and data, the data from this historic election do not provide evidence of substantial change in the geography of racially differential voting patterns.
Brief on behalf of the Appellant. The questions presented are whether §4(a) of the Voting Rights Act, which permits “political subdivisions” of a State covered by §5’s requirement that certain jurisdictions preclear changes affecting voting with the federal government to bail out of §5 coverage if they can establish a ten-year history of compliance with the VRA, must be available to any political subunit of a covered State when the Court’s precedent requires “political subdivision” to be given its ordinary meaning throughout most of the VRA and no statutory text abrogates that interpretation with respect to §4(a); and whether, under the Court’s consistent jurisprudence requiring that remedial legislation be congruent and proportional to substantive constitutional guarantees, the 2006 enactment of the §5 preclearance requirement can be applied as a valid exercise of Congress’s remedial powers under the Reconstruction Amendments when that enactment was founded on a congressional record demonstrating no evidence of a persisting pattern of attempts to evade court enforcement of voting-rights guarantees in jurisdictions covered only on the basis of data 35 or more years old, or even when considered under a purportedly less stringent rational-basis standard. It is argued that the Court should reverse the judgment of the district court and render judgment that the district is entitled to use the bailout procedure or, in the alternative, that §5 cannot be constitutionally applied to the district.
Plaintiffs Republican National Committee (“RNC”) et al. file this opposition to the Defendant Federal Election Commission’s (“FEC”) motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 20). On November 13, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their complaint alleging that § 101 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”), Pub L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81, 82-86, codified at 2 U.S.C. § 441i, was unconstitutional as applied to their intended activities. (Dkt. 1) (“Complaint”). In accordance with this Court’s scheduling order, (Dkt. 19), Plaintiffs filed their motion for summary judgment on January 26, 2009, (Dkt. 21). On that same day, the FEC filed its motion to dismiss, which argues that Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge is precluded by res judicata. Plaintiffs respond accordingly.
Amicus brief filed Senator John McCain, Senator Russell Feingold, Former Representative Christopher Shays, and Former Representative Martin Meehan in support of Appellee. Amici argue that the Court should affirm the decision of the three-judge district court.
Defendant FEC’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Questions of Constitutionality to the Court of Appeals en banc. Defendant argues that many of the questions plaintiffs have proposed for certification to the en banc Court of Appeals under 2 U.S.C. § 437h are not sufficiently substantial for that extraordinary procedure. In any event, certification of any question is premature, because several of plaintiffs’ constitutional claims first require clarification, statutory or regulatory interpretation, and the development of an adequate factual record. Accordingly, the Court should set a discovery schedule to be followed by the submission of proposed factual findings, briefing on those proposed findings, and subsequent legal briefing as to the certification of the questions plaintiffs have raised.
Defendant Federal Election Commission moves the Court for an order dismissing this action for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A memorandum in support of this motion and a proposed order are attached.
Plaintiffs Republican National Committee (“RNC”), Robert M. “Mike” Duncan, California Republican Party, and Republican Party of San Diego County move for summary judgment on all counts contained in their complaint.
Western District of Washington District Court order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Amicus brief for the Campaign Legal Center, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the Reform Institute in support of Petitioners. Amici argue that the Court should make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause compels recusal where, as in this case, the facts and circumstances create the overwhelming perception that objectively massive campaign expenditures can purchase a favorable outcome in a specific pending case. Such a decision would establish the need for state courts to tread with proper concern for constitutional values in an area that has so far been characterized by doubt, uncertainty, and variable enforcement.
The question presented is whether Connecticut’s campaign finance law discriminates against minor party candidates by imposing qualifying requirements for public financing that are more onerous than any others in the nation, and that are not necessary to prevent factionalism or preserve the public fisc, coupled with a trigger provision that effectively penalizes minor party candidates who reach a threshold level of contributions by awarding their major party opponents an offsetting grant that will often far exceed what the minor party candidate has raised and spent. It is therefore argued that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted. Alternatively, the petition should be held pending a final decision in McComish v. Bennett, No. 10-298.
Petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to review its judgment herein. Petitioners argue that the petition should be granted so that the Court may answer the unresolved question and provide a test for determining when a coordinated political party expenditure constitutes the party’s "own speech," thereby reducing somewhat the disadvantage that political parties now face.
Motion for a Stay of Issuance of the Mandate of Defendant-Appellee Pierce O’Donnell. Defendant argues that a certiorari petition by Defendant would present substantial and meritorious questions arising from the panel’s decision, including: (1) whether the Ninth Circuit interpreted provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) in accordance with Supreme Court precedent concerning statutory interpretation; (2) whether the panel opinion applied Fifth Amendment due process principles and the rule of lenity as required when interpreting a criminal statute; and (3) whether the panel opinion followed Supreme Court precedent concerning interpretation of statutes criminalizing otherwise constitutionally-protected political speech.
Order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denying defendant-appellee’s petition for rehearing.
Petitioner Human Life of Washington's petition for certiorari. Petitioner argues that the Court recognized the danger of creeping, incremental, free-speech encroachments presented as “modest” (MCFL, 479 U.S. at 264-65). Therefore, the Court’s vigilance is again required and the petition should be granted.
King Street Patriots, Catherine Engelbrecht, Bryan Englbrecht, and Diane Josephs file their motion to transfer venue, sand subject thereto, motion for severance, pleas to the jurisdiction, original answer and counterclaim, in response to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Original Petition, Plaintiffs' Supplemental Petition, and Plaintiffs' Application for Temporary injunction.