National Organization for Marriage, Inc. v. Walsh
714 F.3d 682
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- NOM filed a federal suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against New York’s definition of “political committee” under Election Law § 14-100.1, alleging First Amendment violations.
- NOM described itself as nonsectarian, non-partisan, and opposed to same-sex marriage, planning expressive advocacy in Sep–Oct 2010 that could trigger the political committee designation.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding NOM’s claim not ripe because there was no enforcement threat yet.
- NOM amended its complaint, alleging intended future and materially similar speech that could render NOM a political committee under § 14-100.1, despite a savings clause exemption for certain groups.
- The district court deemed the case not ripe and suggested NOM might avoid designation due to the savings clause, leading to dismissal.
- The Second Circuit held NOM’s claims ripe and vacated the district court’s dismissal, remanding for merits consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NOM’s suit is constitutionally ripe | NOM asserts a real, imminent fear of enforcement. | Board has not threatened enforcement; ripeness requires actual enforcement exposure. | Claims are ripe; pre-enforcement threat suffices |
| Whether prudential ripeness bars review | Abstention would chill protected speech pending future events. | Favorable later review may be more appropriate due to speculative future events. | Prudential abstention rejected; review not barred |
| Whether the case is moot | Past election timing does not moot ongoing First Amendment concerns. | Election has passed; no live controversy. | Not moot; falls within capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception |
| Whether to remand for merits after reversal on jurisdiction | Court should address merits now that jurisdiction exists. | Remand for merits is appropriate after resolving jurisdiction. | Remand to address merits in district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing ripeness interplay; injury must be actual or imminent)
- Vermont Right to Life Committee v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 2000) (pre-enforcement challenges permitted where credible threat of enforcement exists)
- Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (ripeness as preventing premature adjudication)
- New York Civil Liberties Union v. Grandeau, 528 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008) (standing and ripeness overlap; pre-enforcement challenges considered)
- FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007) (capable-of-repetition yet evading review; election timing)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (standing and ripeness analysis may be considered together)