Litigation

Free Speech For People has gained considerable momentum since our launch over five years ago, after the 2010 Citizens United ruling.  An overview of our litigation work in action is listed below.

Recent Cases

FSFP Files FEC Complaint to Abolish Super PACs (July 2016) — Free Speech For People and bipartisan coalition file FEC complaint on behalf of Members of Congress and congressional candidates—and joined by the Campaign for Accountability filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission seeking to abolish Super PAC spending in US elections. We are honored to be representing Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA-33), and Representative Walter Jones (R-NC-3), along with 2016 congressional candidates, in this FEC complaint.  The FEC complaint names ten super PACs as respondents, including the Democratic and Republican super PACs for Senate and House candidates. It alleges that the super PACs “have knowingly accepted and continue to knowingly accept contributions that exceed the $5,000 per contributor limit, in some cases by over a hundredfold.” The $5,000 per contributor limit has remained on the books after the SpeechNow ruling. The FEC complaint seeks enforcement of this $5,000 contribution limit, thereby abolishing super PACs in US elections.To download the latest version of Frequently Asked Questions on our FEC complaint, click here. [Download the FEC Complaint  PDF]

Our Docket

Defending campaign finance laws

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State

Free Speech For People, along with MOVI, California Clean Money Campaign, CalPIRG, Common Cause California and Courage Campaign, has filed an amicus brief before the California Supreme Court in defense of California Proposition 49, also known as the Overturn Citizens United Act.

Our brief focuses on a provision in the California Constitution providing that the people have a right to “instruct their representatives.” The history of this provision, and of the contemporaneous practice of the California Legislature, demonstrates that it was intended to allow questions like Proposition 49. This is important not only in California, but also in other states that have similar constitutional provisions. As the people express their will through the ballot, the growing support for a constitutional amendment will become impossible to ignore.  [Download PDF]

Defending Florida’s campaign finance rule for judicial elections
in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar

On December 19, 2014, Free Speech For People and retired Montana Supreme Court Justice James Nelson (a member of Free Speech For People’s Board of Directors) filed an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar in defense of a Florida campaign finance rule for judicial elections. In May 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in defense of the Florida State bar, upholding state laws that prohibit elected judges from personally soliciting donations to support their campaigns. The Court rejected in a 5-4 decision, a free speech claim brought forward from a Florida judge, recognizing the importance of maintaining the dignity appropriate to judicial office.

Our brief argued that the US legal system depends on public respect for judges and courts, and that therefore the states have a compelling interest in protecting the dignity of the judiciary. This ruling further helps support the public’s confidence in the judiciary. [Download PDF]

Defending Montana’s campaign contribution limits in Lair v. Motl 

On June 19, 2015 we submitted an amicus brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Lair v. Motl, a challenge to Montana’s campaign contribution limits. Plaintiffs (represented by James Bopp, an architect of the Citizens United ruling) allege that these longstanding limits are unconstitutionally low and violate the First Amendment. We argue that these limits are necessary to protect the constitutional promise of political equality for all, regardless of access to wealth. We were joined on this brief by former Montana Supreme Court Justice James Nelson (a member of our Legal Advisory Committee), the American Independent Business Alliance, and the American Sustainable Business Council.  [Download PDF]

On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling sending the case back to the federal trial court for another review.

For further explanation on this ruling, click here. To read more on our work defending Montana’s Corrupt Practices Act, click here. 

Defending the SEC’s anti pay-to-play rules in New York Republican State Committee v. SEC

On August 29, 2014, we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in support of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s anti-“pay-to-play” rule for investment advisers, which prevents investment advisers from receiving management fees from public funds when they have given political contributions to the elected officials who influence the choice of investment advisers for those funds. Our brief argues that the rules protects the First Amendment rights of public employees by preventing investment advisers from using a portion of their pension money to pay for political spending.  In March 2015, Free Speech For People submitted a brief in support of the Securities Exchange Committee in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. [Download PDF]

Defending corporate disclosure laws against First Amendment challenges

Defending Vermont’s GMO labeling law in Grocery Manufacturers Association v. William Sorrell, Attorney General Vermont

On November 14, 2014, we filed an amicus brief before the federal district court in Vermont in defense of Vermont’s recently-passed law requiring the labeling of food produced with genetic engineering. Major agribusinesses and industrial food manufacturers and processors, represented by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Snack Food Association, the International Dairy Foods Association, and the National Association of Manufacturers, have challenged the law under the First Amendment, claiming that it forces them to “speak” against their will. Our brief sets forth fundamental First Amendment principles, and argues that food labeling requirements do not merit the full protection of the First Amendment. The First Amendment was designed to protect democratic participation in self-government and promote individual autonomy of expression, not to exempt commercial vendors from labeling requirements. In fact, Vermont’s law promotes First Amendment values by giving Vermonters accurate and useful information that enables them to exercise their autonomy by making informed purchasing decisions. [Download PDF]

Defending  a law requiring publicly-traded corporations to disclose whether their products use “conflict minerals” in National Association of Manufacturers, et al. v. U.S. SEC

We joined Global Witness Limited in an important brief  pushing back against a First Amendment claim by the National Association of Manufacturers and other corporate interests. The companies challenge a federal law requiring publicly-traded corporations to disclose whether their products use “conflict minerals” from the war-torn Democratic Republic of the Congo. This would help investors and customers understand which companies trade in conflict minerals that may benefit armed warlords. But the companies claim that this disclosure forces them to “speak” against their will. Our joint brief argues that these factual disclosures do not violate the First Amendment. [Download PDF]

Pushing back against corporate abuse of the Equal Protection Clause

International Franchise Association v. City of Seattle (May 2015) — Free Speech For People, Courage Campaign, Equal Justice Society, and Demos filed a brief on May 22, 2015, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in defense of Seattle’s living wage law. In International Franchise Association v. City of Seattle, franchised businesses allege that Seattle’s living wage law violates their alleged constitutional rights. Our amicus brief , which cites historical legislative history, indicates that Seattle’s living wage law (which has enormous positive impact on racial minorities) fulfills, rather than violates, the Fourteenth Amendment. [Download the PDF]

Defending the rights of hotel workers in Los Angeles to enact a fair, living wage for workers in American Hotel & Lodging Association v. City of Los Angeles 

Free Speech For People, Courage Campaign, Equal Justice Society and Western Center on Law and Poverty, filed an amicus brief in support of the City of Los Angeles and its new hotel worker “living wage” ordinance against an Equal Protection Clause challenge from the American Hotel & Lodging Association. The suit also contends that the City’s ordinance violates state and federal equal protection clauses by unfairly targeting a single industry.

Our brief argues that the “Citywide Hotel Worker Minimum Wage Ordinance” (Los Angeles City Ordinance No. 183241), which was passed in October 2014, fulfills rather than violates the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause. Citing historical materials from the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, indicating that “fair, living wages” were a central concern of the Reconstruction Congress, we explain how LA’s hotel living wage ordinance will lift thousands of poor workers, mostly people of color, out of poverty, without drawing any distinction or creating any division based on race. [Download PDF]

Defending the rights of the people of Seattle to enact a fair, living wage for workers in International Franchise Association et al. v. City of Seattle

Free Speech For People, Courage Campaign, Equal Justice Society, and Demos filed an amicus brief on May 22, 2015 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in defense of Seattle’s living wage law. In International Franchise Association v. City of Seattle, franchised businesses allege that Seattle’s living wage law violates their alleged constitutional rights. Our amicus brief, which cites historical legislative history, indicates that Seattle’s living wage law (which has enormous positive impact on racial minorities) fulfills, rather than violates, the Fourteenth Amendment.

An amicus brief before the federal district court in Washington was filed by Free Speech For People in October 2014. Our brief argued in defense of Seattle’s recently-passed minimum wage ordinance, which, in stages, raises the city’s minimum wage to $15 per hour. Our brief challenged the corporate claims that the Seattle ordinance violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, and it also challenges the corporate claims of a First Amendment violation. Read more about our filing in the District Court in Washington. [Download PDF]

Defending a Missouri ballot initiative in Noel v. Board of Election Commissioners for the City of St. Louis

Free Speech For People has joined the legal team defending the Take Back St. Louis ballot initiative campaign. This ballot initiative, which would amend the city charter of St. Louis (Missouri) to prevent the city from granting tax breaks to fossil fuel and nuclear mining companies, was challenged in court before the ballots were printed. At the preliminary injunction stage, the judge (citing Citizens United) found that the initiative would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as state law. We’ve joined the campaign’s Missouri-based legal team and will be assisting in upcoming proceedings.  Read the post-trial brief here. [Download PDF]

Pushing back against corporate claims of Constitutional Rights

Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius Court Case

The Supreme Court ruled on whether corporations have religious rights under the U.S. Constitution. In Conestoga, a kitchen cabinet manufacturer is claiming that the contraceptive care requirement of the new federal Affordable Care Act violates its First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. In response, we recently filed a powerful amicus brief before the Court in which we challenge the claim that corporations practice religion and have free exercise rights like people under the Constitution. Read our statement on U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Conestoga and Hobby Lobby. [Download the PDF]

Comments are closed.