Dennis Fusaro v. Charlton T. Howard, III, 19 F.4th 357

Dennis Fusaro, a Virginia resident and political consultant, sought Maryland’s statewide voter list (§ 3-506) to mail letters criticizing the appointed State Prosecutor; Maryland requires applicants be registered Maryland voters and attest the list will be used only for purposes “related to the electoral process.”
Fusaro’s application was denied (he wasn’t a Maryland voter); he sued state officials asserting (1) Access Provision and (2) Use Provision violated the First Amendment and that the Use Provision was unconstitutionally vague; claims brought both facially and as-applied.
The Fourth Circuit earlier vacated dismissal and instructed the district court to apply the Anderson-Burdick framework to Fusaro’s free-speech claims and to address the vagueness claim on the merits.
On remand, after discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to Maryland on the Use Provision claims (and did not decide Access claim after a separate ruling made Access moot); Fusaro obtained the list later and abandoned the Access claim.
On this appeal the Fourth Circuit affirmed: it applied Anderson-Burdick (per law of the case), held the Use Provision as-applied did not violate the First Amendment, and rejected both the as-applied and facial vagueness challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicable standard: strict scrutiny vs. Anderson‑Burdick	Fusaro: Sorrell and related authority require strict scrutiny	State: Anderson‑Burdick applies as previously decided by the Fourth Circuit	Law of the case: Anderson‑Burdick controls; strict scrutiny rejected
As‑applied Free Speech challenge to Use Provision	Use restriction on list use burdens speech and should fail Anderson‑Burdick balancing	State: burden is modest, viewpoint‑neutral, and justified by privacy, anti‑harassment, and voter‑participation interests	Use Provision as‑applied survives Anderson‑Burdick; State interests outweigh modest burden
As‑applied vagueness of phrase “related to the electoral process”	Phrase is vague and chills speech; Fusaro says he cannot determine permissible uses	State: ordinary meaning suffices; discovery showed no confusion about Fusaro’s intended mailings	As‑applied vagueness fails — ordinary meaning (and Fusaro’s own admissions) make the scope clear
Facial challenges (Free Speech and vagueness)	Provision invalid in all or a substantial number of applications	State: statute has plainly legitimate applications and has not been enforced discriminatorily	Facial challenges fail: cannot show no set of valid applications; Fusaro’s conduct is clearly proscribed so facial vagueness barred

Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (establishing balancing framework for election‑law burdens on political speech)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (applying Anderson balancing to election regulations)
Fusaro v. Cogan, 930 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2019) (prior panel decision directing Anderson‑Burdick analysis — law of the case)
Fusaro v. Howard, 472 F. Supp. 3d 234 (D. Md. 2020) (district court opinion granting summary judgment to State on Use Provision)
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (Anderson‑Burdick application; discusses weighing even slight burdens)
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) (void‑for‑vagueness principles and limits on facial vagueness challenges)
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 137 S. Ct. 1144 (2017) (applying Holder logic to Fourteenth Amendment vagueness challenges)
Salerno v. United States, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (standard for facial challenges: no set of circumstances exists under which the law would be valid)
McLaughlin v. N.C. Bd. of Elections, 65 F.3d 1215 (4th Cir. 1995) (endorsing Anderson‑Burdick test and burden analysis)