Cook County Republican Party v. Frances Sapone
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17327
7th Cir.2017Background
- Cook County and Chicago Republican Parties sued the Cook County Board of Election Commissioners to require that the Party’s 2016 House candidate be placed on the ballot; the district court entered an injunction and the Board did not appeal.
- The Parties also sued two newly elected Republican ward committeemen, Frances Sapone and Sammy Tenuta, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Party validly refused to seat them on its central committee under Party eligibility rules.
- Sapone and Tenuta won their ward elections; the Party’s bylaws (adopted shortly before the election) disqualify persons who voted in another party’s primary within eight years; both had voted in recent Democratic primaries.
- The Party argued its state-law interpretation permits excluding them and added an anticipatory federal claim: if Illinois law does not uphold the Party’s rule, the First Amendment protects the Party’s right to select its leaders.
- The district court upheld the Party’s rules under Illinois law and also ruled, redundantly, that officials challenging the rules would violate the First Amendment; the Seventh Circuit found the state-law dispute did not present a federal case or controversy and vacated the declaratory judgment as beyond federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court had jurisdiction over Party’s declaratory claim against Sapone and Tenuta | Party: supplemental or original federal jurisdiction exists because related federal issues could arise (First Amendment defense) | Sapone/Tenuta: dispute is one of Illinois law about seating elected committeemen; no federal question presented | Court: no Article III case or controversy; no original federal question; supplemental jurisdiction inapplicable; dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether Party’s claim “arises under” federal law because federal constitutional issue might be implicated | Party: anticipatory First Amendment claim supports federal jurisdiction | Sapone/Tenuta: federal issue would be a hypothetical, reactive defense only | Court: federal issue would be a later-tier defense/contingent argument and does not make the claim arise under federal law |
| Whether declaratory-judgment posture alters jurisdictional analysis | Party: suing proactively changes posture to permit federal review | Sapone/Tenuta: mirror-image suit would be state-law claim; declaratory suit does not transform it | Court: use Franchise Tax Board mirror-image inquiry; jurisdiction determined by what would occur if defendants sued first—here state law governs |
| Whether district court’s constitutional holding was appropriate absent an actual federal controversy | Party: ruling necessary to preclude future state action | Defs/Respondent: no state official contested Party rules; constitutional holding was advisory | Court: constitutional ruling was unnecessary/advisory; district court should not have adjudicated the dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee, 489 U.S. 214 (1989) (political parties have First Amendment right to choose their leaders)
- Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (use mirror-image hypothetical to assess jurisdiction in declaratory-judgment suits)
- Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667 (1950) (federal defense does not make a claim arise under federal law)
- Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908) (well-pleaded complaint rule for federal-question jurisdiction)
- South Bend v. South Bend Common Council, 865 F.3d 889 (7th Cir. 2017) (federal-question jurisdiction principles reaffirmed)
- 1000 Friends of Wisconsin Inc. v. United States Department of Transportation, 860 F.3d 480 (7th Cir. 2017) (finality and appealability principles relevant to uncontested relief)