[EL] Today's other Supreme Court opinion

[Eric J Segall]

That’s awesome Steve!

Sent from my iPhone

On May 7, 2020, at 7:22 PM, Vladeck, Stephen I <SVladeck at law.utexas.edu> wrote:


 One might note the irony of the Supreme Court invoking the “party presentment” principle to chastise a lower court when the “party presentment” issue was neither advanced by the parties nor discussed at oral argument.

---
Stephen I. Vladeck
A. Dalton Cross Professor in Law
University of Texas School of Law
727 East Dean Keeton Street
Austin, TX  78705
Phone: (512) 475-9198 | E-Mail: svladeck at law.utexas.edu
Web: http://law.utexas.edu/faculty/siv245
Twitter: @steve_vladeck

On May 7, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Adav Noti <anoti at campaignlegalcenter.org> wrote:


The Supreme Court’s non-Bridgegate opinion today was interesting from a political law perspective.  The Court smacked around<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F19pdf%2F19-67_n6io.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C2e6c12f9d9c04903041d08d7f2dd8805%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C1%7C637244905626702956&sdata=1cmuRzW%2BnDh6KWjgzn%2FDCEFWJKjb%2FRdY4YQUsWu%2Fakc%3D&reserved=0> the Ninth Circuit for inventing a facial First Amendment challenge the plaintiff in the case hadn’t raised, ordering the parties to brief and argue it, and facially striking down the statute on the First Amendment grounds the court itself had devised.

Or to hyperlink that description slightly differently: inventing<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftransition.fec.gov%2Flaw%2Flitigation%2Fcitizens_united_sc_08_order_rearg.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C2e6c12f9d9c04903041d08d7f2dd8805%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C1%7C637244905626702956&sdata=spHBmgItHgUEr%2FKIlg8w5huGZMfQWMuC95tFSOLrlV0%3D&reserved=0> a facial First Amendment challenge the plaintiff<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftransition.fec.gov%2Flaw%2Flitigation%2Fcu_cu_mot_sj.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C2e6c12f9d9c04903041d08d7f2dd8805%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C1%7C637244905626712958&sdata=cZJgJ3mMAGwILg4cbVXMy2%2FIuxdBbDL1hZiedHAklow%3D&reserved=0> in the case hadn’t<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftransition.fec.gov%2Flaw%2Flitigation%2Fcitizens_united_fec_motion_sj.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C2e6c12f9d9c04903041d08d7f2dd8805%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C1%7C637244905626722948&sdata=%2BNO9UZ3nCRqI3WFpCjkPawrZ8ksf5t6HbOERavbMlXU%3D&reserved=0> raised<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftransition.fec.gov%2Flaw%2Flitigation%2Fcu_order_dismiss_cnt5.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C2e6c12f9d9c04903041d08d7f2dd8805%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C1%7C637244905626722948&sdata=F5Olju2ejicYWGYtwwll%2BVNR5HvJZbebmiZq06A9bms%3D&reserved=0>, ordering the parties to brief and argue<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2009%2F06%2Fbriefing-set-on-citizens-united-rehear%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C2e6c12f9d9c04903041d08d7f2dd8805%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637244905626732946&sdata=u9uWwSpUCk5y%2FYVF%2FK9zyWqMp%2BXdf27mI21pvoxdbqE%3D&reserved=0> it, and facially striking down<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar_case%3Fcase%3D14627663605033036164&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C2e6c12f9d9c04903041d08d7f2dd8805%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C1%7C637244905626732946&sdata=xkfvfc%2BBTDvZLOM7BAAAzPANny%2B2HtGZXmYyEUDeH%2Fs%3D&reserved=0> the statute on the First Amendment grounds the court itself had devised.


Adav Noti
Senior Director, Trial Litigation & Chief of Staff
Campaign Legal Center
1101 14th Street NW, Washington, DC 20005
202.736.2203 | @AdavNoti<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FAdavNoti&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C2e6c12f9d9c04903041d08d7f2dd8805%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C1%7C637244905626742938&sdata=yp71TCt0wMaulkcJPuMOda8UbcQ7TvASaQVsET1iXVQ%3D&reserved=0>
anoti at campaignlegalcenter.org<mailto:anoti at campaignlegalcenter.org>

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
This message is from an external sender. Learn more about why this <<
matters at https://links.utexas.edu/rtyclf.                        <<

CAUTION: This email was sent from someone outside of the university. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdepartment-lists.uci.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flaw-election&data=02%7C01%7Cesegall%40gsu.edu%7C2e6c12f9d9c04903041d08d7f2dd8805%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C1%7C637244905626772930&sdata=ysgQFXC%2BOdcuJcoBObKXWwLWIKThcbwc1JQ%2Fs0oewPY%3D&reserved=0
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200507/069ca1f9/attachment.html>