Filter by Type
Filter by Issue Area
Filter by Document Type
Filter by Case/Action Status
Mailer advertisement from David Schweiker’s campaign attacking then-Republican primary challenger Jim Ward.
Published in 2004, CLC's The Campaign Finance Guide provided a pre-Citzens United explanation for citizens, candidates, political organizations and the news media, including a brief overview of federal campaign finance laws in effect at that time. The Guide summarized the rules governing the financing of federal political activities and described how the laws are enforced.
Central District of California District Court’s order to dismiss count three.
Amicus brief on behalf of Pacific Legal Foundation, Center for Equal Opportunity, and Project 21 in support of Appellant. Amici argue that the Court should hold that the 2006 reauthorization of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is not a valid exercise of Congress’s remedial powers under the Fifteenth Amendment.
Supreme Court's decision. The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
Defendant-intervenor’s memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment. It is argued that because there are no genuine issues of fact, and because Plaintiffs’ First Amendment and equal protection claims fail as a matter of law, the Court must grant summary judgment for Defendants and Defendant-Intervenor.
Defendants Arizona Secretary of State and Citizens Clean Elections Commissions (“Defendants”) move for summary judgment as to both Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint and Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Complaint in Intervention. This motion is supported by Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants’ and Defendant-Intervenors’ Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts, the Declaration of Todd F. Lang and the Declaration of Counsel in support thereof, all of which are filed herewith.
Plaintiffs’ memorandum in support of summary judgment. It is argued that the Court was correct to rule twice that Matching Funds cause the vigorous exercise of First Amendment rights to disseminate hostile viewpoints, and that this legal framework cannot withstand the holding of Davis. Because Matching Funds violate the First Amendment, they cause irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Elrod, 427 U.S. at 373-74. Accordingly, the public interest and equities favor permanently enjoining Matching Funds. Service Employees Intern. Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Fair Political, 721 F. Supp. 1172, 1179 (E.D. Cal. 1989). For these reasons, Plaintiffs request the Court to permanently enjoin A.R.S. § 16-952 (A)-(C) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, both facially and as-applied.
Amicus brief by the Campaign Legal Center supporting Defendants-Appellees. The CLC argues that the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed.
Central District of California District Court's order. The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment. Counts One and Two are dismissed.
Supreme Court decision. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined. Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined. Scalia filed a dissenting opinion.
Defendant’s response to government’s supplement to oppose the Defendant’s proposed Motion to Dismiss Indictment. Defendant argues that the supplemental filing contains several erroneous contentions that again misinform the Court about the statutory regime at issue.
Amicus brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center supporting Defendants-Appellees. The CLC argues that the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed.
Plaintiff’s supplemental memorandum in opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss indictment. The Plaintiff wishes to correct a statement made at oral argument with respect to whether the Federal Election Campaign Act can be interpreted as allowing a conduit contribution. The Plaintiff's position is that it does not under any circumstances.
Plaintiffs Republican National Committee et al. file supplemental opposition to the FEC’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
Appellees' brief before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. State Defendants request the Court to affirm the District Court's order for on summary judgment.
Defendant FEC’s supplemental memorandum in support of its Motion to Dismiss. The Commission requests that the Court dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff McComish's second amended complaint before the District Court of Arizona. Plaintiff requests (1) a declaration that §§ 16-952(A), (B) and (C) of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, and any Commission rules promulgated in furtherance thereof, violate the right to equal protection under the law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) a declaration that §§ 16-952(A), (B) and (C) of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, and any Commission rules promulgated in furtherance thereof, violate the right to free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (3) an Order that preliminarily and permanently enjoins the relevant Defendants from further implementing and performing their duties in administering and enforcing the above-referenced provisions either with respect to Plaintiffs or in general; (4) an award for Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (5) such further relief as this Court deems equitable, just, and proper.