WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC.
v.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. sought an emergency injunction to block enforcement of a Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act provision prohibiting corporations from using general treasury funds for electioneering communications, claiming it violated the First Amendment. Chief Justice Rehnquist, acting as Circuit Justice, denied the application, finding that an injunction pending appeal barring enforcement of a federal statute would be an extraordinary remedy inappropriate here, particularly given the Supreme Court's recent holding that the Act was facially constitutional and a three-judge district court's unanimous rejection of preliminary injunctive relief.
[1] An injunction pending appeal barring the enforcement of an Act of Congress is an extraordinary remedy.
[2] The All Writs Act authorizes the issuance of injunctions pending appeal only when necessary or appropriate in aid of the Court's jurisdiction and when the legal rights at…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Chief Justice Rehnquist,
Circuit Justice.
Applicant Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., has requested I grant an injunction pending appeal barring the enforcement of §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), 116 Stat. 91, 2 U. S. C. §441b (2000 ed. and Supp. II), which bars corporations from using general treasury funds to finance electioneering communications as defined in BCRA §201. Applicant contends that §203 violates the First Amendment as applied to its political advertisements. A three-judge District Court, convened pursuant to BCRA § 403(a)(1), denied applicant’s motion for a preliminary injunction and denied applicant’s motion for an injunction pending appeal. I herewith deny the application for an injunction pending appeal.
An injunction pending appeal barring the enforcement of an Act of Congress would be an extraordinary remedy, particularly when this Court recently held BCRA facially constitutional, McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93, 189-210 (2003), and when a unanimous three-judge District Court rejected applicant’s request for a preliminary injunction. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U. S. 1301, 1302-1303 (1993) (Rehnquist, C. J., in chambers). The All Writs Act, 28 U.
S. C. § 1651(a), is the only source of this Court’s authority to issue such an injunction. That authority is to be used “‘“sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances.” ’ ” Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U. S. 1312, 1313 (1986) (Scalia, J., in chambers) (quoting Fishman v. Schaf-fer, 429 U. S. 1325, 1326 (1976) (Marshall, J., in chambers)). It is only appropriately exercised where (1) “necessary or appropriate in aid of [our] jurisdictio[n],” 28 U.
S. C. § 1651(a), and (2) the legal rights at issue are “indisputably clear,” Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U. S. 1301, 1303 (2001) (Rehnquist, C. J., in chambers). Applicant has failed to establish that this extraordinary remedy is appropriate.
Therefore, I decline to issue an injunction pending appeal in this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2003)
- Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 479 U.S. 1312 (U.S. 1986)
- Fishman v. Schaffer, 429 U.S. 1325 (U.S. 1976)
- Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301 (U.S. 2001)