- Apr 27, 2012
FEC responding to Mr. Hoersting, Backer and Najvar's advisory opinion request on behalf of Shaun McCutcheon, concerning the application of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”), and Commission regulations to Mr. McCutcheon’s desire to make aggregated contributions to Federal candidates totaling $54,400 during the 2011-2012 election cycle. The Commission concludes that the Act prohibits Mr. McCutcheon from making aggregated contributions to Federal Candidates in excess of $46,200 during the 2011-2012 election cycle.
- Jun 28, 2012
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. The Government appeals the district court’s grant of William P. Danielczyk, Jr. and Eugene R. Biagi’s (the "Appellees") motion to dismiss count four and paragraph 10(b) of the indictment, alleging that they conspired to and did facilitate direct contributions to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign in violation of 2 U.S.C. § 441b(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 ("FECA"), and 18 U.S.C. § 2.1 The district court reasoned that in light of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), § 441b(a) is unconstitutional as applied to the Appellees. The Courts disagrees for the following reasons in the document and thus reverses the district court’s grant of the motion to dismiss count four and paragraph 10(b) of the indictment.
- Sep 28, 2012
Opinion read by Circuit Judge Brown. As such, the Court rejects Plaintiffs Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) challenge arguing that aggregate limits are unconstitutional.
- May 29, 2013
Both the City of Falls Church and the Attorney General filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment and Decree based on the agreed findings outlined in the document.
- Jun 25, 2013
Plaintiff-Appellant, Free Speech, appeals the district court’s dismissal of the complaint it filed in July 2012, alleging certain regulations and practices of Defendant-Appellee, the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), violate its rights under the First Amendment. After careful review of the appellate filings, the district court’s order, and the entire record, the three-judge panel affirmed the dismissal for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.
- Jun 10, 2014
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.
- Apr 29, 2015
Chief Justice Roberts, delivered the opinion of the Court. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, joined that opinion in full, and Ginsburg joined except as to Part II. Breyer filed a concurring opinion. Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Breyer, joined as to Part II. Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas joined. Kennedy, and Alito, filed dissenting opinions.
- May 20, 2015
The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment in an action brought by two individuals and a Hawaii for-profit corporation, A-1 A-Lectrician, Inc., challenging the constitutionality of Hawaii’s campaign finance laws.
- May 26, 2015
The panel reversed the district court’s judgment, entered following a non-jury trial, and remanded in an action challenging, under the First Amendment, Montana’s dollar limits on contributions to political candidates. The panel held that the district court applied the wrong legal standard prior to enjoining permanently the enforcement of Montana’s restrictions on campaign contributions by individuals, political action committees, and political parties. The panel held that the district court applied neither the new formulation of what constitutes an important state interest set forth in Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), nor the correct formulation, set forth in Mont. Right to Life Ass’n v. Eddleman, 343 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2003), of whether the state’s contribution limits are “closely drawn” to the state’s goal of preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. The panel remanded in order to allow Montana’s political contribution limits to be tested under the new and more restrictive standard of Citizens United, and the correct “closely drawn” test set forth in Eddleman.
- Jul 7, 2015
Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Garland. Plaintiffs' challenge is rejected. Statute against all of the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges are upheld.
- Aug 5, 2015
Courts vacates the district court’s judgment that SB 14 was passed with a racially discriminatory purpose and remands for further consideration of Plaintiffs’ discriminatory purpose claims, using the proper legal standards and evidence. Court vacates the district court’s holding that SB 14 is a poll tax under the Fourteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendments and renders judgment for the State on this issue. Court does not address whether SB 14 unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments; therefore, Court vacates the district court’s judgment on that issue and dismisses those claims. Court affirms the district court’s finding that SB 14 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through its discriminatory effects and remands for consideration of the appropriate remedy. Finally, on remand, the district court should: (1) give further consideration to its discriminatory purpose findings as specified herein; and (2) if the district court does not find that SB 14 was imposed with a discriminatory purpose, consider what remedy it should grant due to SB 14’s discriminatory problematic.”). Court does not further opine on this issue at this time, leaving it to the district court in the first instance on remand. Case: 14-41127 Document: 00513142615 Page: 50 Date Filed: 08/05/2015 No. 14-41127 49 effect in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, taking account of any impact of SB 983 and this opinion. It is left to the district court in the first instance to decide whether any additional evidence may be proffered on the matters remanded.
- May 22, 2017
U.S. Supreme Court affirms North Carolina’s 2011 Congressional maps are an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.