In The News

Litigation We’re Watching by Terry Martin

Lasted Updated 5/14/2018

United States v. Singh (9th Circuit, parties currently filing opening briefs): Ravneet Singh, a political consultant, was convicted under the “anti-shredding” provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for his role in a campaign money laundering scheme which funneled campaign contributions from a wealthy Mexican businessman into San Diego local races. Recognizing that the particular theory of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act accepted by the trial court may impose additional, unenumerated reporting obligations on vendors of in-kind services to campaigns beyond the comprehensive reporting obligations of the Political Reform Act, Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk attorneys filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit urging the court to adopt an interpretation of the “anti-shredding” provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that provides clear guidance to such vendors.

Thompson v. Hebdon (9th Circuit, oral argument set for June 11, 2018): First Amendment law forbids discriminating against speakers based on identity, with rare exceptions such as certain forms of foreign national participation in the political process. Alaska enforces a statutory provision that limits the aggregate contributions a candidate may accept from out-of-state residents. The law was challenged under the free speech clause for unconstitutionally discriminating against people who do not live in Alaska, but are still U.S. citizens. If Alaska’s law is upheld, the decision could undermine protections for national groups and donors engaged in political action.

Lair v. Motl (9th Circuit opinion issued, awaiting appeal): Montana’s campaign contribution limits for campaigns in state were challenged under the First Amendment as being too low and unsupported by evidence. The district court struck down the limits and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed. It is expected that the challengers will petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review. If review is granted, the case is expected to resolve whether limits on the amount a donor can contribute to candidates, committees, and political parties imposed by governments must be supported by evidence of the corruption they were enacted to combat. Another case, Zimmerman v. City of Austin, presents a similar issue in the context of the municipal campaign finance limits in Austin, Texas. As with Lair, a federal appellate court decision against the challenger was recently issued (5th Circuit) and is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gil v. Whitford (U.S. Supreme Court, decision forthcoming): Although the Voting Rights Act and Equal Protection Clause have been held to disallow legislatures from drawing district lines that disfavor individuals on account of race, this concept has never successfully been extended to protecting voters on account of political party preference. Wisconsin’s statewide redistricting plan was challenged by Democrats as unfairly reducing their voting strength in state legislative elections. The lower court invalidated the map, relying on an “efficiency gap” concept that compares votes that are “wasted,” by either being for a losing candidate or for a winning candidate but not needed to secure that candidate’s victory, to the overall votes cast in the election. The case could either provide a standard by which future legislative maps must be restricted nationwide or determine that such questions are best left to the political process and inappropriate for the judiciary to hear.

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (U.S. Supreme Court, decision forthcoming): U.S. Supreme Court precedent has permitted states to pass laws prohibiting campaigning inside a polling place. Minnesota currently has a law that bans the wearing of political apparel at the polling place. The law was challenged on First Amendment grounds when a voter was temporarily prevented from voting for wearing two items of political apparel: A t-shirt that stated “Don’t Tread on Me,” with a picture of the Gadsden Flag and a small Tea Party logo, and a button that stated “Please I.D. Me.” The challenger argues that the prior caselaw only permits states to enforce laws barring active campaigning, not passive political speech such as T-shirts. The case could potentially expand First Amendment protections for voters whose participation in the political process extends beyond voting into shows of support for favored candidates and issues.

Janus v. AFSCME (U.S. Supreme Court, decision forthcoming): Public sector unions may not, under current First Amendment law, compel membership in their organizations as a condition of employment. They may, however, charge an “agency fee” to non-members to help cover the cost of bargaining. Unions argue that this agency fee is necessary to prevent economic free riding. The challenger urges the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its prior holding permitting such fees, arguing that it infringes upon his right to free speech by compelling him to support a lobbyist for pro-labor policies.