Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Bellows, 92 F.4th 36

The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), a nonprofit focusing on election integrity, requested access to Maine’s statewide voter registration data, known as the Voter File, under Section 8(i)(1) of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
Maine’s Privacy Law restricts access to the Voter File, permitting disclosures only for specific purposes and imposing use and publication bans, along with civil penalties for violations.
In 2019, PILF's request for Maine’s Voter File was denied since its intended use (for research, commentary, and litigation) was not allowed under Maine’s law.
Maine later amended its law to create a new exception (Exception J) allowing access for voter list maintenance evaluation, but still restricted subsequent uses and public release of the data.
PILF sued, alleging these restrictions violated the NVRA by interfering with the mandated public disclosure of voter registration records and preempted federal law. The district court sided with PILF, ruling that Maine’s restrictions were preempted; the State appealed to the First Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (PILF)	Defendant's Argument (Secretary Bellows)	Held
Whether NVRA’s Section 8(i)(1) applies to Maine's Voter File	The Voter File is a record "concerning the implementation" of voter registration list maintenance, subject to public disclosure under NVRA	Voter File is not covered by Section 8(i)(1); covers only oversight, not day-to-day registration activities	Section 8(i)(1) applies: the Voter File falls within the scope of records for public disclosure
Whether Maine’s Use Ban and Publication Ban are preempted by NVRA	Use Ban & Publication Ban conflict with NVRA’s purpose and obstruct nationwide list maintenance evaluation and enforcement	Bans are justified to protect voter privacy and limit use to Maine-centric purposes	Bans are preempted: they obstruct NVRA’s broad goals for transparency and enforcement
Whether threat of enforcement creates PILF standing	PILF faces a substantial risk of liability for using data in ways NVRA permits, creating injury in fact	State won’t enforce bans in PILF's feared scenarios, so PILF has no standing	PILF has standing; nonbinding disclaimers do not eliminate risk of enforcement
Whether fines for violating the Use/Publication Ban are preempted	Fines are invalid because underlying use and publication restrictions are themselves preempted	Fines valid to enforce Maine law	Fines are preempted along with underlying restrictions

BedRoc Ltd. v. United States, 541 U.S. 176 (statutory interpretation centers on plain, unambiguous text)
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (words in statutes are given their ordinary meaning)
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (read statutory words in context of the entire scheme)
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (Congress's Elections Clause power justifies NVRA preemption)
Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (conflict preemption is measured by Congress’s objectives)
Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (Congress’s purpose is the 'ultimate touchstone' in preemption cases)
Project Vote/Voting for Am., Inc. v. Long, 682 F.3d 331 (NVRA’s disclosure mandate advances election transparency)
Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576 (agency interpretations persuasive only if they have power to persuade)
Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (Attorney General’s legal interpretation is not binding on courts)