Lair v. Bullock
798 F.3d 736
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Montana statutory limits cap individual/PAC contributions to state candidates (e.g., $650 for governor/lt. gov joint tickets; lower amounts for other offices) and aggregate party-affiliated committee limits (higher than individuals).
- Appellees (individuals, PACs, party-affiliated committees — “Lair”) challenged both Individual/PAC Limits and Party Limits as First Amendment violations; intervenor Hill Campaign supported Lair.
- District court conducted a bench trial, applied the Randall plurality’s “closely drawn” test, found both sets of limits unconstitutional, and permanently enjoined enforcement.
- Ninth Circuit stayed the injunction, reviewed prior Ninth Circuit precedent (Eddleman), and heard the appeal to determine whether Citizens United and Randall changed the governing tests.
- Ninth Circuit panel holds Eddleman’s framework remains but Citizens United narrowed the “important state interest” to quid pro quo corruption (or its appearance), so Eddleman’s prior validation of Montana’s limits (which relied on a broader ‘‘influence’’ theory) is abrogated; Randall’s plurality test is not binding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lair) | Defendant's Argument (Montana) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eddleman remains binding on what constitutes an "important state interest" supporting contribution limits | Citizens United and McCutcheon narrowed the anti-corruption interest to quid pro quo only, so Eddleman (which accepted broader "influence" concerns) is no longer binding | Eddleman remains controlling in the Ninth Circuit; Citizens United addressed expenditures not contributions | Held: Citizens United abrogated Eddleman’s broader ‘‘influence’’ rationale; only quid pro quo or its appearance can justify contribution limits |
| Whether Randall’s plurality ‘‘closely drawn’’ multi-factor test abrogated Eddleman’s tailoring test | Randall’s test replaces Eddleman’s tailoring analysis and thus district court properly applied Randall | Randall has no majority opinion; it cannot abrogate Ninth Circuit precedent | Held: Randall did not abrogate Eddleman; Randall’s plurality is non‑binding persuasive authority |
| Whether Montana’s Individual/PAC and Party Limits are constitutional under the correct standard | Limits are closely drawn to prevent corruption and allow effective campaigning | Limits were previously upheld (Eddleman) and Montana has an interest in preventing corruption | Held: District court applied the wrong legal standard; Ninth Circuit reverses and remands for reconsideration under (1) Citizens United’s narrowed anti‑corruption interest (quid pro quo or appearance) and (2) Eddleman’s retained framework for assessing whether limits are closely drawn |
| Standard of review and remand instructions | Lair urged merits review of the record and validation of limits | Montana urged remand to apply correct legal standard and allow fact development under quid pro quo standard | Held: Panel reverses injunction and remands; district court must identify the precise state interest (or make findings that Montana met its burden) and apply Eddleman’s closely drawn analysis consistent with Citizens United; factual development may be needed |
Key Cases Cited
- Montana Right to Life Ass'n v. Eddleman, 343 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2003) (Ninth Circuit framework validating Montana contribution limits under Buckley/Shrink Missouri)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (constrains anti‑corruption rationale to quid pro quo corruption or its appearance)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (distinguishes expenditure vs. contribution limits; establishes "closely drawn"/important interest framework)
- Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006) (plurality opinion articulating multi‑factor ‘‘closely drawn’’ test; no controlling majority)
- Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Gov't PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000) (discusses preventing corruption or appearance; earlier broader ‘‘influence’’ language)
- McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm’n, 572 U.S. 185 (2014) (reinforces quid pro quo/appearance as the sole valid anti‑corruption interest)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (panels must follow intervening higher authority; prior circuit precedent displaced only by controlling later authority)
- Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2012) (motions‑panel stay opinion addressing whether Randall produced a controlling opinion)