Doug Lair v. Steve Bullock
697 F.3d 1200
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Montana regulates campaign contributions to state candidates since 1994 via § 13-37-216, annually inflation-adjusted; Eddleman upheld constitutionality in 2003 under Buckley/Shrink Missouri framework.
- District court in Oct. 2012 found Montana’s § 13-37-216 unconstitutional, enjoining enforcement, just before an election.
- Montana sought a stay pending appeal; the Ninth Circuit granted a stay pending merits panel review.
- Court applied Nken four-factor test: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, balance of harms, and public interest.
- The Ninth Circuit stayed the district court’s injunction pending appeal, finding a substantial case for relief and imminent election considerations.
- The panel reasoned Randall’s reasoning does not clearly mandate overturning Eddleman and that Montana remains likely to succeed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Montana’s contribution limit likely constitutional despite Randall? | Montana argues Randall undermines Eddleman; limits tailored to anti-corruption goals. | Montana contends Randall is not irreconcilable with Eddleman and supports continued limits. | Yes; Montana has a substantial case for relief on the merits. |
| Does Randall alter Buckley’s framework for tailing limits? | Randall undermines Buckley’s approach to tailoring limits. | Randall clarifies but does not overrule Buckley; remains consistent with Eddleman. | No; Randall does not clearly overrule Buckley in this context. |
| Are the Nken factors satisfied to grant a stay? | Stays would harm challengers and the public interest. | Staying preserves election integrity and prevents irreparable harm. | Yes; stay granted pending merits panel resolution. |
| Did the district court err in applying Randall/Eddleman to Montana’s scheme? | District court misread evidence and failed to account for Montana’s inflation indexing and party limits. | Montana’s framework remains consistent with Buckley/Randall in tailoring limits. | Likely error by district court; Eddleman remains persuasive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (contribution limits upheld under tailoring and anti-corruption rationale)
- Shrink Missouri Gov’t PAC v. Adams, 528 U.S. 377 (U.S. 2000) (upholds Buckley framework; limits must be narrowly tailored)
- Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (U.S. 2006) (plurality discusses dangers signs and tailoring; allows limits with close scrutiny)
- Eddleman v. Montana Right to Life Ass’n, 343 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholds Montana’s limits under Buckley framework; tailing analysis emphasized)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc standard: later authority controls when clearly irreconcilable; Miller v. Gammie tests binding authority)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (U.S. 2009) (four-factor stay standard guiding discretion)