Missourians for Fiscal Accountability v. Klahr
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13767
8th Cir.2016Background
- Missourians for Fiscal Accountability (MFA) formed a campaign committee 13 days before the Nov. 2014 election, violating Mo. Rev. Stat. § 130.011(8)’s requirement that campaign committees be formed no later than 30 days prior to an election.
- MFA initially refrained from soliciting contributions or making expenditures and then sued the Missouri Ethics Commission (MEC) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the 30-day formation deadline unconstitutionally chilled its First Amendment rights.
- The district court issued a temporary restraining order before the election; MFA thereafter accepted contributions and made expenditures, then filed a termination statement after the election.
- MEC’s verified answer and available consent orders show MEC has a policy of negotiating and imposing civil fees for formation-deadline violations, suggesting a real enforcement threat.
- The district court dismissed MFA’s case as unripe after the election; the Eighth Circuit majority reversed, finding MFA had standing, the case was not moot, and the challenge was ripe. A dissent argued the case was moot, unripe for future relief, and MFA lacked standing for prospective relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek prospective relief | MFA self-censored (refrained from fundraising/ spending) because formation deadline and MEC enforcement policy created a credible threat; thus injury-in-fact exists | MEC: no actual/imminent concrete injury because no fee was yet imposed; MFA’s committee dissolved after the election | Court: MFA has Article III standing based on objectively reasonable self-censorship and MEC’s stated enforcement policy |
| Mootness | MFA: not moot because MEC can still impose fees and MFA continues to exist as a 527/nonprofit; capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review applies | MEC: election over, committee dissolved by operation of law, no reasonable expectation MFA will recreate a committee within 30 days of a future election; thus moot | Court: not moot — enforcement threat not permanently eradicated and exception for capable-of-repetition applies; dissent disagreed |
| Ripeness of constitutional challenge | MFA: ripe because it presented evidence of MEC’s fee practice and sought pre-election relief (TRO); harm of self-censorship matured | MEC: challenge premature absent an actual enforcement action or concrete fee determination | Court: ripe — record contains MEC fee evidence and the asserted harm (chill) is sufficiently concrete |
| Scope of relief sought (prospective injunctive/declaratory relief) | MFA seeks prospective relief to remove the chilling effect and allow timely formation/participation in future elections | MEC argues MFA lacks a present, likely future injury to justify prospective equitable relief; damages would be more appropriate for past harm | Court allowed the challenge to proceed to merits; dissent would deny prospective relief for lack of a live controversy |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr., 664 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2011) (judicial notice of government websites may be appropriate)
- 281 Care Comm. v. Arneson, 638 F.3d 621 (8th Cir. 2011) (self-censorship and objective-reasonableness test for First Amendment standing)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (standing requirements for injunctive relief)
- Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (1975) (Article III controversy must exist at all stages)
- Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (1979) (credible threat of prosecution can confer standing)
- National Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Connor, 323 F.3d 684 (8th Cir. 2003) (ripeness and fee-evidence considerations in challenge to formation/registration deadlines)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing and mootness must persist throughout litigation)
- Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (voluntary cessation and requirement for ongoing injury for prospective relief)
- Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103 (1969) (no case or controversy where future recurrence is unlikely)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (First Amendment standing for advocacy organizations challenging statutes that chill speech)