- Mar 1, 2009
Brief on behalf of the Federal Appellee. It is argued that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.
- Mar 18, 2009
Amicus brief by Appellee Travis County. Amicus argues that the district court judgment should be affirmed.
- May 28, 2009
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.
- Mar 2, 2010
Response brief of Appellees Dean Martin, Rick Murphy, Robert Burns, Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC, and Arizona Taxpayers Action Committee. Appellees argue that the district court properly concluded that the Matching Funds Provision is unconstitutional and that the Court should affirm the district court.
- Apr 12, 2010
Brief filed by the FEC. The FEC argues that all certified questions be decided in favor of the Commission and that the district court’s grant of summary judgment be affirmed.
- Apr 30, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellees brief for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs ask that the Court reverse the district court, finding the district court’s denial of the Coalition’s preliminary injunction request of the contribution window and the entity contribution ban to be an abuse of discretion. Plaintiffs also argue that the Court should remand those issues with instructions to enter preliminary injunction for the Coalition. Also, the Court should affirm the district court’s grant of the Coalition’s preliminary injunction request as to the party contribution ban and the IE source ban.
- May 1, 2010
Motion of the FEC to dismiss or affirm. The question presented is whether the three-judge district court correctly held that the “soft money” provisions of Section 101 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 116 Stat. 82, are constitutional as applied to the Republican National Committee, its Chairman, and its state and local affiliates. Appellee argues that the appeal should be dismissed for lack of a substantial federal question. In the alternative, the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.
- Jun 28, 2010
Petition for panel or en banc rehearing of Defendant-Appellee Pierce O’Donnell.
- Dec 7, 2010
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.
- Dec 16, 2010
Brief of State Appellees. Appellees argue that the Plaintiffs’ claims mischaracterize the Citizens United decision and erroneously assert that Citizens United implicitly overruled certain prior Supreme Court precedent. Numerous court decisions have unanimously rejected these arguments. Moreover, it is argued that the district court correctly reasoned that the remaining Dataphase factors also support the denial of Plaintiffs’ motion. The district court’s decision should be affirmed.
- Mar 7, 2011
Intervenors-Appellees respectfully request that the Court affirm the judgment of the District Court.
- May 20, 2011
Appellees and Cross-Appellants' opening brief before the Supreme Court of Montana. The issues presented include whether or not § 13-35-227(1), MCA, which expressly prohibits corporations (but not individuals, unincorporated associations, partnerships, or the media) from making independent expenditures to support or oppose political candidates or political parties, bans speech protected by the First Amendment; whether the State has a compelling interest in banning corporate political speech, and, if so, is the statute narrowly tailored to meet that interest; if the statute is unconstitutional, may the State be enjoined from enforcing the ban against corporate political speech; and if the statute is unconstitutional, did the District Court abuse its discretion by not awarding the Appellees their attorney fees under either the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act or the public attorney general doctrine.
American Tradition Partnership (ATP) v. Bullock: Appendix for certiorari filed by American Tradition PartnershipMar 26, 2012
An appendix to the brief filed by the American Tradition Partnership answering the questions of whether Montana is bound by the holding of Citizens United and when the ban applies to state, rather than federal, elections. ATP also argues that a ban on corporate independent political expenditures is a violation of the First Amendment.
Van Hollen v. FEC: Plaintiff-Appellee Van Hollen’s Opposition to Intervenors’ “Emergency Motions” for StayApr 30, 2012
Plaintiff-Appellee Chris Van Hollen submits this opposition to “emergency motions” for stay filed by intervenor-appellants Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) and Hispanic Leadership Fund (“HLF”).
- Jul 20, 2012
Brief of Plaintiff-Appellee Chris Van Hollen. Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), Chris Van Hollen submits this Certificate as to Parties, Rulings, and Related Cases.
- Nov 2, 2012
Merits brief of Defendants-Appellees. They argue that the main issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied, in part, a preliminary injunction motion and denied two motions for injunction pending appeal. Also, that the district court did not abuse its discretion, and its decisions should be affirmed.
- Jan 14, 2013
Summary of the argument stating that the appeal should be dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. In the alternative, the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.
- Feb 20, 2013
Answers whether the district court correctly held that the ban on federal campaign contributions by all federal contractors in 2 U.S.C. § 441c satisfies the First Amendment as applied to contractors who are individuals. Also, whether the district court correctly held that 2 U.S.C. § 441c as applied to individual federal contractors satisfies the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.
- Jul 18, 2013
Appellee FEC's brief answering whether the three-judge district court correctly rejected appellants’ constitutional challenge to the federal statutory limits on the aggregate amounts that an individual may contribute to all federal candidates, political parties, and other political committees in a single election cycle, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3).
- Sep 12, 2013
Brief filed by Michael Weaver, in his official capacity as chair and member of the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission. Weaver argues that the purpose of Hawaii's disclosure requirements is to provide the voting public with disclosure about who is trying to influence their vote, and where the money to do so comes from.
- Nov 26, 2014
The Veasey-LULAC Appellees hereby move the Court, pursuant to Fifth Circuit Local Rules 27.5 and 34.5, to expedite consideration of this appeal of a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas striking down Texas’s voter ID law, SB 14 of 2011. For the reasons explained below, this Court should seek to resolve this appeal as promptly as possible in order to ensure that a constitutional system of voter identification is implemented for upcoming elections, including municipal elections scheduled in many Texas cities for May 9, 2015, 1 municipal elections scheduled in many other Texas cities for November 3, 2015, 2 and state and national primary elections scheduled in Texas for March 1, 2016. See App’x A (timeline of key upcoming Texas election dates). Pursuant to Local Rule 27.4, counsel for Veasey-LULAC Appellees have contacted counsel for Defendants-Appellants, who have indicated that Defendants-Appellants oppose this motion.
- Mar 3, 2015
Based on voluminous evidence, mostly uncontradicted, the district court made findings of fact supporting judgment for Plaintiffs on all four challenges to S.B. 14: (1) discriminatory purpose, (2) discriminatory results, (3) poll tax, and (4) undue burden on the right to vote. The district court made its findings with care, applied the correct legal standards, faithfully followed procedural rules, issued an appropriate remedy, and should be affirmed.
Van Hollen v. FEC: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Brief for Chris Van HollenMay 11, 2015
Brief of plaintiff-appellee Van Hollen addressing whether the district court correctly held that the Federal Election Commission’s regulation governing disclosure of the sources of funding for electioneering communications, 11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9) (the “Disclosure Regulation”), is invalid; and whether the district court properly vacated the Disclosure Regulation upon holding it invalid.
- Feb 3, 2016
In November 2015, the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in this case. Oral argument will be heard on March 21, 2016. The Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiff-appellees.
- May 8, 2017
Appellees file their motion to affirm the lower court ruling with the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Jun 8, 2017
CLC filed its opposition to the state of Wisconsin's motion to stay.