Reply documents now available
Today was the day
for final replies to the motions for stays and injunctions in the BCRA case
to be filed in the lower court. A ruling could come at any time, with or
without an opinion (or set of opinions). You can find the reply documents
that have been filed in the district court regarding the stay here at
the Campaign Legal Center.
One reader pointed out to me that the government brief in reply notes the
following: "[T]o the extent that the Supreme Court holds that BCRA is constitutional,
the FEC would at least be free to consider enforcement actions for conduct
occurring during the pendency of the appeals that violated the statute. See
Suster v. Marshall, 149 F.3d 523, 527 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing Edgar v. MITE
Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 647-54 (1982) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring
in the judgment)), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1114 (1999). The agency could choose
to forego such enforcement actions as a matter of sound discretion. Nonetheless,
until the Supreme Court provides a definitive ruling as to the validity of
the statute, plaintiffs will incur some risk of liability if they violate
the statute, with or without a stay. Thus, the injury that plaintiffs allege
arises principally from the existence of the statute, not the grant or denial
of a stay."
The NRA reply brief picks
up on my point here
that not a single party has defended Judge Leon's interpretation of the issue
advocacy provisions.
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html