Docket for 10A362
| No. 10A362 | |
| Title: |
| Respect Maine PAC, et al., Applicants |
| v. |
| Walter F. McKee, in his official capacity as a member of the Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al. |
|
| Docketed: | |
| Lower Ct: | United States District Court for the District of Maine |
| ~~~Date~~~ | ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| Oct 7 2010 |
Application (10A362) for an injunction pending appeal, submitted to Justice Breyer. |
| Oct 13 2010 |
Application (10A362) denied by Justice Breyer. |
| Oct 13 2010 |
Application (10A362) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy. |
| Oct 19 2010 |
Response to application (10A362) requested by Justice Kennedy, due October 21, 2010, by 3 p.m. |
| Oct 21 2010 |
Response to application from respondent Walter F. McKee, in his official capacity as a member of the Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al. filed. |
| Oct 21 2010 |
Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Goldwater Institute Schaarf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation. (Distributed) |
| Oct 21 2010 |
Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, et al. (Distributed) |
| Oct 21 2010 |
Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC, et al. |
| Oct 22 2010 |
Reply of applicant Respect Maine PAC, et al. filed. |
| Oct 22 2010 |
Application (10A362) referred to the Court. |
| Oct 22 2010 |
Application (10A362) denied by the Court. The application for an injunction, presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court, is denied. Applicants are correct to note that relief was granted in McComish v. Bennett, 560 U. S. ___ , (2010), which concerned a constitutional challenge to an Arizona law similar to the Maine law challenged by applicants here. The McComish applicants, however, requested a stay of an appeals court decision, whereas applicants here are asking for an injunction against enforcement of a presumptively constitutional state legislative act. Such a request �demands a significantly higher justification� than a request for a stay because, unlike a stay, an injunction �does not simply suspend judicial alteration of the status quo but grants judicial intervention that has been withheld by lower courts.� Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U. S. 1312, 1313 (1986) (Scalia, J., in chambers). In light of these considerations, and given the difficulties in fashioning relief so close to the election, applicants� request for extraordinary relief is denied. Justice Scalia and Justice Alito would grant the application for an injunction as to the matching fund provisions.
|
|