Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield: Defendants’ opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the court’s dismissal of their challenge to the matching funds trigger provisions (Sept. 5, 2008)Sep 5, 2008
- Jan 26, 2009
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.
RNC (Cao) v. FEC: FEC’s response to Plaintiffs’ motion to certify questions of constitutionality to the Court of AppealsJan 27, 2009
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.
- Mar 16, 2009
Defendant’s memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss indictment.
- Apr 10, 2009
Defendant FEC moves the Court for an order granting summary judgment to the Commission pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A memorandum in support of this motion, a statement of material facts not in genuine dispute, and a proposed order are attached.
- Apr 28, 2009
Defendant Federal Election Commission submits reply memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ opposition essentially relies on two arguments: (1) “[T]he relevant issue [in this case] is the nature of Plaintiffs’ intended First Amendment activities”; and (2) those activities “are too far removed from federal elections and campaigns to be regulated.” (See Pls.’ Mem. in Opp. to Def. FEC’s Mot. for S.J. (“Pls.’ S.J. Opp.”) at 3.) FEC argues that each of these arguments is contrary to law and unsupported by the factual record and so requests that the Court grant summary judgment to the Commission.
- May 18, 2009
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.
United States v. O'Donnell: Defendant’s response to government’s supplement to oppose the defendant’s proposed motion to dismiss indictmentJun 4, 2009
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.
- Jun 12, 2009
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.
RNC (Cao) v. FEC: Defendant's supplemental brief in support of its motion to dismiss despite the Citizen’s United rulingFeb 9, 2010
Defendant's supplemental brief in support of its motion to dismiss despite the Citizen’s United ruling. It is argued that the action should be dismissed, or summary judgment should be granted to the Commission.
- Mar 8, 2010
Defendants file this brief and ask the Court to dismiss this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the following grounds: (1) the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars the Court from issuing declaratory or injunctive relief against a State when the relief operates only retrospectively, Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64 (1982); Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908); and (2) Plaintiff’s claims for relief are moot because there is no longer any live dispute between the parties.
Thalheimer v. San Diego: Defendant’s brief in support of its motion to stay the District Court’s preliminary injunction orderMar 8, 2010
Memorandum of points and authorities in support of the City of San Diego's Motion for Immediate Stay of enforcement of portions of the Court's February 16, 2010 order and the Court's February 19, 2010 order. The City request that the Court grant an immediate stay as to those portions of the Court's order relating to contributions to independent expenditure committees; and that the Court issue a stay to remain in effect pending resolution of the appeals in the case. Alternatively, the City requests that the Court issue a stay to remain in effect unit the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may rule upon an application for a stay pending appeal addressed to that Court.
- Apr 21, 2010
Defendant, Attorney General of the United States (“United States”), opposes the Plaintiffs’ Application for a Three-Judge Court. Because Congress has not authorized three-judge courts to hear the constitutional claims in this case, the Plaintiffs’ application should be denied.
- Jun 14, 2010
Defendant asks Court to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims and, moreover, that Plaintiffs' claims are not authorized by Section 5, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
- Jun 22, 2010
Attorney General’s consolidated response to Motions to Intervene. The Attorney General does not oppose permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1). Because there is no statute that confers a right to intervene, and because there is no indication that the Attorney General will not adequately represent the interests of movant-intervenors in this litigation, the conditions are not met for intervention as of right under Rules 24(a)(1) or 24(a)(2).
- Jun 22, 2010
Declaration of Richard Delheim in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Shelby County, AL v. Holder: U.S. Attorney General’s memorandum in opposition to motion for summary judgmentJun 22, 2010
Memorandum in support of the Attorney General’s opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Attorney General requests that the Court deny the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as premature. Alternatively, the Court should stay its consideration of the Plaintiff’s motion and permit the Attorney General to take discovery and ascertain facts essential to oppose the Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion.
LaRoque v. Holder: Defendant’s Reply Brief Responding to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion to DismissJul 7, 2010
The Defendant requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
The Real Truth About Obama (RTAO) v. FEC: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Memorandum of the FEC in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to RTAO's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Summary JudgmentOct 18, 2010
Defendant FEC's Memorandum in support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Summary Judgment. FEC argues that the Court should again deny RTAO’s request for a preliminary injunction because there are no material facts in dispute and RTAO’s remaining challenges lack merit. FEC also argues that the Court should grant summary judgment to the Commission for the same reasons.
Texas Democratic Party v. King Street Patriots: Defendant's motion to transfer venue, motion for severance, plea to jurisdiction, and original answer and counter claimNov 15, 2010
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.
The Real Truth About Obama (RTAO) v. FEC: Defendant's reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgmentDec 6, 2010
Defendant's reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment. Defendant argues that plaintiff’s request for preliminary relief is moot. Thus, the Court should again deny RTAO’s request for a preliminary injunction and grant summary judgment to the Commission.
Van Hollen v. FEC: Defendant's motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgmentAug 1, 2011
Defendant Federal Election Commission’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment and in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. It is argued that because the rule is grounded in the administrative record and properly balances the interest in disclosure with the potential First Amendment burden on corporations and unions — as well as on their funders who may have nothing to do with the spenders’ electioneering — the Court should grant summary judgment to the Commission.
- Mar 1, 2012
Defendant, FEC, argues that Plaintiffs cannot justify the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of a vital measure that Congress put in place more than 70 years ago to protect the integrity of the federal government and of federal elections.
- Apr 9, 2012
Defendant Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States in his official capacity, answers each paragraph of the First Amended Expedited Complaint for Declaratory Judgment.
- Jun 25, 2012
Attorney General Eric H. Holder's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- Jul 9, 2012
Defendant's response to plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ attempts to introduce doubt about whether the Supreme Court’s holding remains good law in light of subsequent developments must fail. Only the Supreme Court can overrule its own decisions. And, in any event, none of the developments on which plaintiffs rely casts any doubt on the continued constitutionality of the aggregate contribution limit.
- Aug 15, 2012
The Federal Election Commission (“the Commission”) respectfully moves the Court for an order granting summary judgment to the Commission pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because 2 U.S.C. § 441c is consistent with the First Amendment and the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment as applied to individuals with federal contracts. Attached are a Memorandum of points and authorities in support of the Commission’s Motion, a Statement of Material Facts, and a Proposed Order, as required by LCvR 7.
- Sep 7, 2012
United States’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The United States argue that because South Carolina cannot meet its required burden under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to show that these changes will not have a discriminatory effect and were not enacted with any discriminatory purpose, the United States respectfully requests that the Court deny the state’s request for judicial preclearance of R54.
- Sep 7, 2012
Defendant-Intervenors' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Defendat-Intervenor concludes that South Carolina has failed to carry its burden as to both discriminatory effect and purpose, and preclearance must be denied.
South Carolina v. United States: United States' response to South Carolina's proposed findings and conclusionsSep 14, 2012
United States’ responses to South Carolina’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The United States argue that South Carolina’s request for judicial preclearance of Act R54 should be denied.
Illinois Liberty PAC v. Madigan: Defendants' response to plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunctionSep 14, 2012
Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a Preliminary Injunction and/or Permanent Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Act’s limitations on campaign contributions, 10 ILCS 5/9- 8.5(a)-(d).
South Carolina v. United States: United States' reply to South Carolina's responses to its proposed findings and conclusionsSep 19, 2012
United States' reply to South Carolina's responses to its proposed findings and conclusions. For the reasons outlined in the document, the United States argues that the Court should deny preclearance of Act R54.
South Carolina v. United States: Defendant-Intervenors' reply to South Carolina's response to its proposed findings and conclusionsSep 20, 2012
Defendant-Intervenors’ reply to the State’s response to Intervenors’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- Sep 24, 2012
Solicitor General's opposition to the petition for certiorari. The question presented is whether Congress acted within its authority to enforce the constitutional prohibition against discrimination in voting when it reauthorized Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c (Section 5), in 2006, on the basis of an extensive record demonstrating that, despite considerable progress under Section 5’s remedial framework, discrimination against minority voters continues to be a serious problem in covered jurisdictions and that Section 5 remains a valuable tool in preventing, remedying, and deterring such discrimination.
- Jan 25, 2013
Answers the question as to whether Congress’s decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. 1973c, under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the VRA, 42 U.S.C. 1973b(b), exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.
- Oct 25, 2013
Defendants the State of Texas, Rick Perry (in his official capacity), John Steen (in his official capacity) and Steve McCraw (in his official capacity) move to dismiss all of the complaints filed in these consolidated cases.
- Oct 25, 2013
Defendants the State of Texas, Rick Perry (in his official capacity), John Steen (in his official capacity) and Steve McCraw (in his official capacity) move to dismiss all of the complaints filed in the consolidated cases.
Delaware Strong Families v. Denn: Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Defendant's Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary InjunctionMar 7, 2014
The Delaware Attorney General filed a brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware urging the Court to deny a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the Plaintiff, Delaware Strong Families (DSF). The case, Delaware Strong Families v. Biden, involves a constitutional challenge to campaign finance disclosure provisions associated with Delaware’s new electioneering communications law.
- Feb 24, 2017
The defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court.
- Apr 13, 2017
The FEC filed a motion to dismiss the challenge made by the Republican Party of Louisiana to soft money restrictions, or affirm the decision made by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Jul 6, 2017
The state of Texas filed a brief on the remedies in the Texas voter photo ID case.
Campaign Legal Center v. Federal Election Commission: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia- FEC Summary Judgement MemorandumOct 16, 2017
The Federal Elections Commission filed a memorandum supporting their own motion for summary judgement and opposing Campaign Legal Center's motion for summary judgement.
Elster v. City of Seattle: Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County: Motion to DismissOct 17, 2017
The City of Seattle filed a motion asking that the Court dissmiss complaints filed by the Plaintiffs.
Elster v. City of Seattle: Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County: Reply in Support of its Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to DismissOct 20, 2017
Defendent, City of Seattle, filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss arguing that their campaign financing tax is not in violation of the first amendment.
- Nov 7, 2017
Post-trial brief filed in District Court, November 2017.