National Organization for Marriage v. Roberts
753 F. Supp. 2d 1217
N.D. Fla.2010Background
- NOM planned to air ads and send direct mail targeting Florida candidates before the election.
- NOM refused to comply with Florida's electioneering communications laws that require disclosure.
- NOM challenges the definitions of electioneering communications organization and electioneering communication as overbroad and vague.
- The court frames the issue under preliminary injunction standards and distinguishes between facial challenges and as-applied challenges.
- The court analyzes the appeal-to-vote test from WRTL and clarifies Citizens United does not overrule it.
- The court denies NOM's motion for a preliminary injunction, holding the statutes pass exacting scrutiny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Florida's electioneering definitions unconstitutional? | NOM argues overbroad and vague definitions. | Statutes are consistent with WRTL framework and tailored to unambiguously campaign-related speech. | Not likely to succeed |
| Does the 'appeal to vote' test survive vagueness challenges? | NOM contends the test is vague and overbroad in application. | The test is objective, clear, and properly applied post-Citizens United. | Not vague |
| Does strict scrutiny or major-purpose analysis apply to disclosure requirements? | NOM asserts major-purpose critique and strict scrutiny apply. | Exacting scrutiny applies; major purpose not required here. | Exacting scrutiny applicable; disclosure upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) (overruled McConnell's limitations on corporate expenditures but preserves WRTL appeal-to-vote framework)
- Federal Election Comm'n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007) (defines sweep of 'appeal to vote' test and protection of issue advocacy)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (establishes express advocacy vs. unambiguous campaign-related speech)
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) (upholds regulation of the functional equivalent of express advocacy)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (recognizes protective standards for expressive activity and regulatory burdens)
- New York State Club Ass'n, Inc. v. New York, 487 U.S. 1 (1988) (facial vagueness standards and notice requirements in regulatory schemes)