118 F.4th 770
6th Cir.2024Background
- Ohio enacted a new campaign finance law (Section 121) to ban all “foreign nationals,” including lawful permanent residents (LPRs), from contributing to state political campaigns or making expenditures supporting or opposing ballot initiatives.
- The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) already bans foreign nationals from such activities but expressly exempts LPRs and does not cover ballot initiatives.
- Plaintiffs (two advocacy organizations, two LPRs, and a U.S. citizen married to an LPR) challenged Ohio’s law on First Amendment grounds, arguing it violated the rights of LPRs and those associated with them.
- The district court preliminarily enjoined Ohio from enforcing Section 121 against all foreign nationals, citing First Amendment violations.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed the request to stay the injunction pending appeal, evaluating the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, injury to others, and public interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 121's inclusion of LPRs violates the First Amendment | LPRs have First Amendment rights and are deeply integrated into American society; total ban is overbroad and not narrowly tailored | State can bar all non-citizens—including LPRs—from the democratic process; preventing foreign influence is a compelling interest | Law is not overbroad; Ohio likely to succeed in defending the inclusion of LPRs based on compelling interest and narrow tailoring |
| Whether Section 121 is narrowly tailored or closely drawn | Less restrictive means exist (as shown by FECA); ban burdens innocuous speech and groups with minimal foreign funding | A comprehensive, bright-line ban is justified by difficulty in tracking sources of foreign influence; FECA is not the only permissible method | Section 121 is narrowly tailored and justified despite covering LPRs; bright-line rule is legitimate |
| Whether Section 121's ban on spending regarding ballot initiatives is constitutional | Blanket bans on advocacy about ballot questions chill core political expression and encompass protected speech | Ballot initiatives are essential to direct democracy and subject to state protection from foreign influence | Ban on ballot-initiative expenditures is justified and serves compelling state interest |
| Whether joint ownership of accounts and impacts on speech by citizens create unconstitutional overbreadth | Joint accounts may chill citizens' speech; law may criminalize innocent speech | Regulations exclude citizens using joint accounts; administrative practices allow exceptions | Law is not unconstitutionally overbroad as applied to joint accounts and impact on citizens is insufficient to invalidate |
Key Cases Cited
- Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (First Amendment rights extend to resident aliens)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (Campaign contributions and expenditures are core First Amendment activities; sets scrutiny standards)
- Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U.S. 433 (Strict scrutiny and narrow tailoring for restrictions impacting core First Amendment rights)
- McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 572 U.S. 185 (Intermediate scrutiny applies to campaign contributions; requires laws closely fit important state interests)
- Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (Corporations’ political speech and campaign finance restrictions)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (Overbreadth doctrine requires substantial facial overbreadth relative to legitimate sweep)
- Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113 (Plaintiffs have burden to demonstrate overbreadth for First Amendment challenges)
- Abbott v. Perez, 585 U.S. 579 (States are irreparably harmed when blocked from enforcing valid laws)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (Loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable injury)
- Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, 454 U.S. 432 (States may exclude non-citizens from aspects of self-government)
- Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68 (Permissible distinction between citizens and non-citizens in government functions)
- Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (States have compelling interest in electoral integrity; not required to wait for proven harm)
- Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216 (Classification of LPRs and rights in government roles)
- Thompson v. Hebdon, 7 F.4th 811 (Distinguishes between regulation of non-citizens and other types of campaign finance restrictions)
- Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc. v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 274 F.3d 377 (Public interest in preventing First Amendment violations)
- Connection Distrib. Co. v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281 (Public interest always favors preventing constitutional violations)