McConnell v FEC: Supreme Court: Stay ProceedingsMadison Center Plaintiffs' Application for Injunction Pending Appeal On May 22, 2003, the Madison Center asked for an injunction pending appeal that would suspend enforcement of the District Court's replacement definition of electioneering communications until the Supreme Court can address the issue. Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Madison Center Plaintiffs' Application to Vacate the District Court's General Stay On May 22, 2003, interest groups including the Club for Growth and the National Right to Life Committee asked the Supreme Court to reverse the stay put in place by the District Court that left the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 intact until the Supreme Court rules on its constitutionality. Click here to view the document in its entirety.
District Court Order Staying May 1 Decision On May 19, 2003, the district court stayed the entire May 1 decision in McConnell v. FEC. Click on the titles below to view the documents in their entirety.
Order Regarding Post-Judgment Motions
Memorandum Opinion Regarding Post-Judgment Motions
Legal Center Analysis of Stay Proceedings The Campaign Legal Center has produced an analysis of the stay proceedings in McConnell v FEC.
Click here to view the analysis in its entirety.
Defendants Congressional Intervenors' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Stay Entire Decision On May 14, 2003 , Defendants Congressional Intervenors filed their reply in support of their motion to stay the entire district court decision pending Supreme Court review. Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Governmental Defendants' Reply in Support of their Motion for a Stay
On May 14, 2003, the governmental defendants filed their reply memorandum in support of their motion for a stay of the entire district court decision pending Supreme Court consideration. Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Madison Center Plaintiffs' Reply to the Opposition to their Motion for an Injunction of the Entire Reform Act On May 14, 2003 , Plaintiffs Madison Center filed their reply to the opposition to their motion for an injunction of the entire Reform Act. Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Plaintiff NRA's Final Reply to Response for its Motion to Stay
On May 14, 2003, Plaintiff National Rifle Association filed its final reply to responses to its motion for stay before the district court. Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Chief Justice Rehnquist Denies NRA Emergency Application for Stay On May 13, 2003, U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the circuit judge for the District of Columbia, denied the NRA's emergency application for a temporary stay of the portion of the D.C. district court's decision in McConnell v. FEC dealing with "electioneering communications," or issue ads. The denial was without prejudice, and the Chief Justice noted that the NRA could apply to the High Court again if the district court had not resolved stay proceedings by May 20, 2003 . Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Defendants Congressional Intervenors' Opposition to Madison Center's Motion Seeking an Injunction Defendant congressional intervenors filed this May 13, 2003 opposition to the Madison Center's motion seeking an injunction on enforcement of the part of the Reform Act dealing with "electioneering communications" or issue ads, notwithstanding the district court's decision of May 1. Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Defendants Congressional Intervenors' Opposition to the NRA's Emergency Stay Motion Defendant congressional intervenors filed this May 13, 2003 response to the NRA's emergency application for a U.S. Supreme Court stay of the part of the district court's May 1 decision dealing with "electioneering communications," or issue ads. In this filing, the congressional sponsors of the Reform Act urge the Court, if it chooses to block the district court's ruling, to stay the entire decision, not just certain aspects. Click here to view the document in its entirety
Government Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Various Motions
On May 12, 2003, the Government Defendants filed their Response to the Plaintiffs' various motions for stay, injunction and amending or altering of the district court's judgment of May 1, 2003. Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Madison Center Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Applications for Stay of the Entire District Court Opinion On May 12, 2003, the Madison Center Plaintiffs filed their opposition to stay Mmtions of the government, intervenors, National Rifle Association and American Civil Liberties Union. Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Madison Center Plaintiffs' Opposition to the NRA's Emergency Motion for Supreme Court Stay In their May 12 motion, the Madison Center Plaintiffs argue that while they believe the part of the district court's decision dealing with "electioneering communications," or issue ads, is unconstitutional, the "proper remedy is to enjoin that aspect of the decision pending appeal, rather than restore the Reform Act's principal definition." Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Plaintiff AFL-CIO's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay Entire District Court Decision On May 12, 2003, Plaintiff AFL-CIO filed its opposition to the defendants' motion to stay the entire district court decision. Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Plaintiff National Association of Broadcasters' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay In this memorandum filed May 12, 2003 , plaintiff National Association of Broadcasters opposes the defendants' application to stay the entire district court decision pending Supreme Court consideration. The NAB writes solely to urge that the district court's unanimous decision striking down Section 504 of the Reform Act be left in force. That part of the act would have required broadcasters to collect and disclose records of all request to buy broadcast time for communications that "relat[e] to any political matter of national importance," including but not limited to communications relating to any "election to Federal office" or any "national legislative issue of public importance." Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Plaintiff National Rifle Association's Emergency Application to the U.S. Supreme Court for Stay
In this application filed on May 12, 2003, plaintiff National Rifle Association asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the three-judge panel's decision in McConnell v. FEC until the High Court can rule on the case. The NRA has filed a similar request with the district court itself. Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Plaintiff Republican National Committee's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay Entire District Court Decision On May 12, 2003, Plaintiff Republican National Committee filed its opposition to defendants' motion to stay entire district court decision. Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Plaintiffs California Democratic and Republican Parties opposition to Congressional Sponsors' Request for Stay On May 12, 2003, Plaintiffs California Democratic Party and California Republican Party filed their opposition to defendants' and congressional intervenors' request for stay. Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Plaintiffs Echols' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay Entire District Court Decision On May 12, 2003, Plaintiffs Echols filed their opposition to the government defendants' and congressional intervenor defendants' motion to stay. Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Plaintiffs McConnell, Barr et al.'s Opposition to the Defendants' Motions to Stay the Entire District Court Decision On May 12, 2003, plaintiffs Senator Mitch McConnell and Representative Bob Barr filed their opposition to the defendants' motions to stay the entire district court decision. Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Congressional Intervenors' Opposition to NRA's and Government Defendants' Motion for a Temporary Stay On May 9, 2003, the congressional sponsors of the Reform Act filed these responses to plaintiff National Rifle Association's and the governmental defendants' motions for an immediate, temporary stay of the district court's May 1 decision while the court considers staying its decision until the Supreme Court can review the case. As to both the NRA and the government's motions, the congressional sponsors agree that an immediate stay should issue, but urge the court to stay its entire decision, not just certain aspects, pending Supreme Court consideration. Click here to view the Congressional Sponsors’ Response to the NRA in its entirety. Click here to view the Congressional Sponsors’ Response to the Governmental Defendants in its entirety.
Government Defendants' Application for Stay and Temporary Stay Pending the District Court's Consideration of the Stay Motion
On May 9, 2003, the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Election Commission and Federal Communications Commission filed an application for a stay of the entire district court decision until the U.S. Supreme Court can review the case. The government also filed a motion for a temporary stay of the decision while the district court considers the various stay motions. Memorandum in Support of Government Defendants' Motion for Stay Government Defendants' Motion for Stay Memorandum in Support of Government Defendants' Motion for Temporary Stay Government Defendants' Motion for Temporary Stay
Plaintiff AFL-CIO's Application for Stay The AFL-CIO, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, applied on May 9, 2003, for a stay of the portion of the district court decision dealing with electioneering communications. Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union's Application for Stay
The American Civil Liberties Union, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, applied on May 9, 2003, for a stay of the district court decision. Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Plaintiff National Rifle Association's Motion for Temporary Administrative Stay The National Rifle Association filed a motion on May 8, 2003, for an immediate "administrative stay" pending the district court's resolution of its application for stay. Click here to view the document in its entirety.
Plaintiff National Right to Life Committee, et al.'s Motion to Amend Judgment and Motion to Enjoin Enforcement.
On May 9, 2003, the National Right to Life Committee, Club for Growth and other plaintiffs filed a motion asking the district court to amend its judgment to hold that the aspects of the Reform Act the court struck down could not be applied "against any Plaintiff or similarly situated entity" anywhere in the United States. The plaintiffs also ask the court to enjoin the portion of its decision dealing with electioneering communications, or "issue ads," pending Supreme Court review. Click here to view the Brief in Support of Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment in its entirety. Click here to view the Memorandum in Support of Motion for Injunction in its entirety.
Defendants Congressional Sponsors' Application for Stay On May 8, Intervening Defendants U.S. Senators John McCain, Russell Feingold, Olympia Snowe and James Jeffords and U.S. Representatives Christopher Shays and Marty Meehan filed a motion asking the three-judge panel that decided McConnell v. FEC to stay its judgment, which enjoined enforcement of certain provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Click here to view the motion in its entirety. Click here to view the Memorandum of Law in support of the motion.
Plaintiff National Rifle Association's Application for Stay The National Rifle Association, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, applied on May 7, 2003, for a stay of the portion of the district court decision dealing with electioneering communications. Click here to view the document in its entirety.
|
