Myers v. Thompson, 192 F. Supp. 3d 1129

Robert Myers, a lawyer and candidate for district judge in Ravalli County, broadcast a radio ad accusing incumbent Judge Jeffrey Langton of misconduct in a child custody case; many factual assertions had been rejected by Montana courts.
The Montana Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) opened an investigation and sent Myers a letter requesting campaign materials and an email warning there would be consequences for untruthful or reckless advertisements.
Myers filed a federal suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging Rule 8.2(a) (Montana Rules of Professional Conduct) and Canon 4.1(A)(10) (Montana Code of Judicial Conduct) as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments; he did not challenge Rule 4.2(A)(3).
The State moved to dismiss Myers’s as-applied claims for lack of standing and ripeness and, alternatively, urged Younger abstention; the court held a hearing and denied those motions.
The court found Myers had standing and ripe claims because he intends to rebroadcast the ad, ODC was actively investigating, and ODC had warned of discipline; however, the court concluded Myers was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his First Amendment challenge.
As a result, the court denied Myers’s request for a preliminary injunction and refused to abstain under Younger.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing / Ripeness to bring as‑applied challenge	Myers intends to rebroadcast the ad and faces a credible threat of ODC enforcement, so injury is imminent	No concrete injury or ripe controversy because ODC has not filed formal charges; investigation only	Court: Myers has standing and his challenge is ripe given ODC’s active investigation and warning
Younger abstention	Federal court should hear the case; ODC proceedings are preliminary and not sufficiently parallel	Federal court should abstain to avoid interfering with state disciplinary process	Court: Younger abstention improper—ODC investigation is at a preliminary stage and Younger’s requirements not met
First Amendment (facial/as‑applied) — whether rules unconstitutional	Rules chill Myers’s campaign speech by prohibiting statements about judges; broader political‑speech precedents apply	State has a compelling interest in preserving public confidence in judiciary; rules narrowly tailor restrictions on false/misleading statements by lawyers/candidates	Court: Myers made colorable First Amendment claim but is unlikely to succeed; State’s interest is compelling and rules are narrowly tailored
Preliminary injunction (Winter factors)	Injunction needed to prevent irreparable speech chilling during election	Myers unlikely to prevail on merits; no basis for extraordinary relief	Court: Denied preliminary injunction because Myers is unlikely to succeed on the merits

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, imminent injury)
Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289 (credible threat of prosecution supports standing)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (pre-enforcement First Amendment challenge ripeness / credible-threat test)
Williams‑Yulee v. Florida Bar, 135 S. Ct. 1656 (state may narrowly restrict judicial candidate speech to protect judicial integrity)
United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (false statements receive some First Amendment protection; counterspeech rationale)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction standard)
Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 645 F.3d 1109 (First Amendment preliminary‑injunction burden shifting)
Wolfson v. Concannon, 811 F.3d 1176 (applying Williams‑Yulee principles beyond solicitation rules)
ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754 (Younger abstention threshold factors)
Standing Comm. on Discipline v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430 (false attacks by lawyers can erode public confidence in judiciary)