FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Citizens United Supreme Court Case is ‘Oddly Confusing’ to Montana AG, Says Group
WASHINGTON, D.C. — June 22 – Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock’s office issued contradictory and confusing statements to a reporter on Thursday that indicate he doesn’t understand his own litigation strategy in Montana’s current Supreme Court battle against Citizens United, the Court’s controversial 2010 election finance law ruling, says The Eleventh Amendment Movement (TEAM), a non-partisan advocacy group.
The attorney general’s statements, which then appeared Friday in a Great Falls (MT) Tribune newspaper article,also seemed to confirm an earlier message from the attorney general’s office that winning the case is a secondary “distraction” from some other, possibly political objectives, says TEAM.
TEAM (http://www.11thAmendment.org) had filed a brief in support of Montana in the case, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, and says that reporter John Adams asked them for comments about statements made by the attorney general’s office criticizing TEAM’s brief. TEAM’s attorneys responded that the attorney general’s statements showed a “distinct and troubling lack of understanding about the fundamental nature of the case and Montana’s own defense, as well as some factual misrepresentations of law and the U.S. Constitution.”
TEAM’s brief argues that the Constitution’s 11th Amendment forbids a private corporation from suing a sovereign state in federal court, as in this Montana case, and the Court must refuse jurisdiction, allowing Montana to win immediately and continue to enforce the state’s anti-corruption election finance laws in defiance of Citizens United.
Also troubling, TEAM says, is Montana’s obstinate refusal to raise any basic jurisdictional challenge that could help win the case for Montana with no legal downside risk, as is reflected in the attorney general office’s Thursday statements: “[Montana’s] briefs focus on what this case is actually about: money in state politics and whether the court opened the floodgates of corruption in the states when it decided Citizens United” and “Attorney General Bullock will not be distracted from the real issues presented in this case.”
Attorney Carl Mayer, counsel for TEAM, responded, “The attorney general seems oddly confused. Preventing the Supreme Court from unconstitutionally dictating to Montana about their election laws is actually what this case is primarily about. Corrupting money in politics is important, but Montana’s own brief asked, first and foremost, for the Court to stay out of Montana’s business and not hear the case at all, in which event Montana wins immediately. To now say that is not a ‘real issue’ of importance, a ‘distraction,’ and is not their objective is counterproductive, especially when the winning 11th Amendment jurisdictional argument is available to help win the case, but is being ignored. What could be a more important ‘real issue’ than winning the case?”
“Fortunately,” Mayer added, “Montana can still file a simple one page motion anytime before the Court may rule on Monday morning. We provided this document to them weeks ago and it can assuredly help raise the winning jurisdictional challenge. There is no legal downside to filing this motion right away. It’s basic litigation strategy that any law professor would teach and advise, to challenge jurisdiction whenever possible.”
Adam Furgatch, co-founder of TEAM, said that “every sentence of Montana’s statement had some misrepresentation or factual error about it. It was bizarre.” He specifically pointed to one “weird statement” from the attorney general that showed “a basic misunderstanding of not only the Constitution but also of the 11th Amendment briefs, which they have purported to have read and now are qualified to criticize.”
The “weird” statement Mr. Furgatch referred to was this: “The briefs filed by the 11th Amendment folks do not directly address Citizens United, but instead rely on a questionable legal theory that would basically allow states to avoid application of the federal Constitution.”
Mr. Furgatch commented, “Do they think the 11th Amendment is somehow not part of the Constitution? Contrary to the idea that the 11th Amendment would ‘allow states to avoid application of the federal Constitution,’ it’s actually quite the opposite…TEAM’s argument allows the precise application of the Constitution’s 11th Amendment limitations to the federal court’s jurisdiction to WIN THE CASE.”
He added, “All arguments put before the Court are, by definition, ‘questionable legal theories’ until the Court rules. Our briefs cite previous Court opinions from all five conservative pro-Citizens United justices as supporting 11th Amendment principles in similar cases. Is the Montana attorney general calling the justices’ own opinions and Court precedent ‘questionable theory?’”
Mr. Furgatch noted finally, “In this case, where four justices are already opposed to Citizens United on the merits, only one justice needs to be persuaded by our side of the question to make this the winning argument. Perhaps, it’s more questionable as to why Mr. Bullock is not doing ‘all he can to defend this (case)’ as he has publicly claimed. Why is Montana not putting forth all reasonable and legal claims to their constitutional, sovereign rights to help them in this case, as their politicians are claiming to do?”
In Friday’s Great Falls Tribune article, Assistant Attorney General James Molloy was reported as saying that “the justices are free to consider those [11th Amendment] arguments without the state having to make them.” TEAM says it has repeatedly advised Mr. Molloy that it is a formal technical requirement that Montana actually indicate that it has not waived its sovereign immunity for the Court to take up the defense.
“Even after it has been explained to Mr. Molloy in detail,” said Mr. Mayer, “he apparently still does not or pretends not to understand that the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to address the 11th Amendment bar to its jurisdiction over this case unless the state of Montana formally asserts its sovereign immunity defense. The one page motion Montana can file anytime before the Court rules takes care of that. Attorney General Bullock should file it immediately to give Montana that extra chance to win the case.”
The two 11th Amendment amicus briefs and a Summary may be viewed at TEAM’s website, LINK:http://www.11thamendment.org/2012/05/08/11th-amendment-supreme-court-briefs/ http://www.11thAmendment.org
Case Citations from this story:
1. Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010)
2. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari: American Tradition Partnership, Inc., fka Western Tradition Partnership, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Steve Bullock, Attorney General of Montana, et al. – U.S. Supreme Court Docket # 11-1179
Quote Source — Attorney General Steve Bullock, 1/20/12: “I owe it to a century of Montanans going forward to do all I can to defend this (case) irrespective of what might happen in my next campaign.”http://ivn.us/2012/01/20/montana-supreme-court-decision-opposes-citizens-united/
###
Contact: Adam Furgatch: 310-967-5854
Adam at 11thAmendment dot org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Supreme Court Altered Documents May Show Bias in Citizens United Montana Case
WASHINGTON, D.C. — June 19 — The U.S. Supreme Court has materially altered case documents in a way that may indicate Court bias. The change could directly affect the outcome of a high-profile case involving the state of Montana and Citizens United, the Court’s controversial 2010 ruling that allows for virtually unlimited corporate spending in federal elections.
According to a report published Thursday at the Huffington Post website, a February 17 Stay Order in the case ofAmerican Tradition Partnership v. Bullock was issued upon referral by Justice Anthony Kennedy. This Order contained a significantly changed caption (the title that names the parties in the case) from the caption that the parties used in the original application and response documents filed on February 9 and 15, respectively.
Both the official Court docket and the archival SCOTUSblog confirm that the earlier documents in question named the defendants as “Attorney General of the State of Montana, and Commissioner of the Commission for Political Practices, Respondents.” The later Court Order changed the named defendants to “Bullock, Attorney General of Montana, et al.”
Reporter Charlie Cray wrote that this seemingly minor name change of inserting the name “Bullock,” actually “has important implications for the Court’s consideration of the case.” When Cray inquired as to how the Court appeared to unilaterally alter the documents, a Supreme Court spokesman gave conflicting and possibly erroneous responses. Further phone calls by Mr. Cray were never returned.
According to legal sources, changing a caption in any case normally requires a separate motion to the Court requesting the change by one of the parties. According to the Court docket, no such request was ever filed, nor was any formal order entered by the Court explaining under what authority the name was changed.
“This name change is absolutely not trivial, but is actually a central issue that could determine whether or not Citizens United is reversed in the Montana case,” said attorney Carl Mayer, counsel for The Eleventh Amendment Movement (TEAM), a non-partisan advocacy group that filed an amicus “friend-of-the-court” brief in the case. The TEAM brief argued, in part, that American Tradition Partnership filed documents that incorrectly name the party, and the case should be thrown out on that basis.
“The originally filed documents named an ‘arm of the state,’ the attorney general’s office, which is constitutionally inadmissible under the 11th Amendment. The rule clearly says that the officer can only be a defendant in his ‘individual capacity.’ For that reason, the case should be thrown out immediately,” explained Mr. Mayer. “That means Montana would automatically win and their anti-corruption election finance laws would remain in force. Citizens United would be defeated in Montana, right here, right now.”
TEAM’s brief quotes Justice Kennedy writing in a 1997 opinion that “suit… is barred by a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity unless it… [is]…against state officers in their individual capacities.” (emphasis added)
Mr. Mayer said that, “re-naming Bullock by name is clearly an attempt to belatedly fit him into the case in an ‘individual capacity,’ though this still doesn’t conclusively determine his ‘individual capacity’ as separate from his official duties. But not naming Bullock by name at all, and solely naming the office of the attorney general, as was originally done, clearly disqualifies the petitioner’s case.”
In the Huffington Post article, Cray asked the rhetorical question, “did Kennedy, who authored the Court’s 2/17 order staying the Montana Supreme Court’s decision, understand the implications of changing the title (i.e. that it could mean the difference between the Court’s accepting or rejecting the case, as TEAM’s amicus brief claims) since he wrote the pertaining Court decision?”
Cray has dubbed this mysterious document alteration incident as “11th Amendment-Gate.”
Adam Furgatch, co-founder of TEAM, commented, “TEAM has been saying all along that the erroneous pleading reflected in the original caption is grounds for immediate rejection of the case, allowing Montana to win immediately. We assumed that the corporations’ attorney had changed the caption to cover up their mistake. Now it appears that the Court itself had a hand in it. The public deserves to know what did happen.”
Mr. Furgatch added, “I would think all Supreme Court reporters would be fulfilling their journalistic duty and be in there asking ‘who did what and why?’ Was there some funny business at the Court to try to cover-up an obvious error they knew to be grounds to toss the case out of federal court? We all look forward to the answers.”
Mr. Furgatch indicated that there were further unexplained caption changes, not just the one reported by Mr. Cray. “Is this really some sort of ‘11th Amendment-Gate?’ We certainly don’t know all the facts yet, and we’re not sure who did authorize the changed documents,” he said. “But if Justice Kennedy has displayed his specific knowledge and bias by doing this favor of changing the name of the case to benefit the corporate petitioners, he should recuse himself from this case.”
And finally, Mr. Furgatch appealed to Montana Attorney General Bullock who “would have until Wednesday to file a simple motion to restore the original title of the case and remove his own name, which could pierce the mystery. There’s no good reason for him not to do it, and it can only help Montana’s case.”
The Court is expected to consider the case in a June 21 Conference and announce a decision on Monday, June 25.
The 11th Amendment brief and other case background material may be found at TEAM’s website:http://www.11thAmendment.org
Referenced Huffington Post article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charlie-cray/montana-citizens-united_b_1595141.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
Supreme Court referenced altered documents: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/american-tradition-partnership-inc-v-bullock/
Case Citations from this story:
1. Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010)
2. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari: American Tradition Partnership, Inc., fka Western Tradition Partnership, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Steve Bullock, Attorney General of Montana, et al. – U.S. Supreme Court Docket # 11-1179
3. (Kennedy Opinion) Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997)
###
Contact: Adam Furgatch: 310-967-5854
adam@11thAmendment.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Supreme Court Surprises in Citizens United Montana Case, Delays Order
WASHINGTON, D.C. — June 18 — The U.S. Supreme Court surprised most Court observers on Monday by delaying an order in a case involving the state of Montana and Citizens United, their controversial 2010 ruling that allows for virtually unlimited corporate spending in state elections.
The Court was expected by many to issue an immediate decision of “summary reversal” in the case American Tradititon Partnership v. Bullock that would uphold Citizens United and strike down a 2011 Montana court ruling that enforced that state’s anti-corruption election finance laws in seeming opposition to the federal mandate.
The Court still has three options available at its June 21 Conference: 1) summary reversal, 2) accepting the case for a full hearing later this year, or 3) refusing jurisdiction to make any decision about the case at all, in which event Montana would win immediately and their state laws would stand and Citizens United would be effectively reversed.
“Surprise, surprise. The Court may recognize that they don’t have the authority to summarily reverse,” said attorney Carl Mayer, counsel for The Eleventh Amendment Movement (TEAM, http://www.11thAmendment.org), a non-partisan group that filed an amicus “friend-of-the-court” brief in the case that argues that the Constitution’s 11th Amendment forbids the Court from taking jurisdiction in this case.
“The 11th Amendment jurisdictional issue may be giving the Court pause here, especially since all five pro-Citizens United justices have also strongly supported 11th Amendment state immunity from suit in similar cases,” reasoned Mr. Mayer, who has Supreme Court success and recently won an important constitutional victory in a federal court in New York that overturned a section of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that permitted indefinite detentions of citizens in the U.S. “It only takes one justice to do the right thing and again uphold the 11th Amendment to swing the Court to vote that it has no constitutional authority to hear this case, and they should refuse jurisdiction,” he explained.
Adam Furgatch, co-founder of TEAM, was encouraged at Monday’s announcement. “The Court knows a strong argument when they see it, and recent news articles suggest the media is coming around to the 11th Amendment story as well,” he said. “There hasn’t been one single legal commentator or law professor who has been able to find fault with the 11th Amendment argument.”
Mr. Furgatch added, “The Court can also simply reject the case on an 11th Amendment “technical error” where the corporations’ attorney, James Bopp, Jr., blundered and submitted incorrect, rule-breaking documents. There is no question about that, it’s in the record and detailed in TEAM’s brief. A ruling only on the technical error would allow the Court to avoid political criticism and still uphold the Constitution, to their credit.”
Two 11th Amendment amicus briefs and a Summary may be viewed at TEAM’s website, LINK: http://www.11thamendment.org/2012/05/08/11th-amendment-supreme-court-briefs/
11th Amendment News Articles referenced:
1. Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charlie-cray/montana-citizens-united_b_1595141.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
2. Counterpunch: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/11/montana-citizens-united-and-the-eleventh-amendment/
Case Citations from this story:
1. Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010)
2. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari: American Tradition Partnership, Inc., fka Western Tradition Partnership, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Steve Bullock, Attorney General of Montana, et al. – U.S. Supreme Court Docket # 11-1179
3. Hedges v. Obama, S.D.N.Y., Case No. 12-CV-331 (KBF)(Slip Opinion, May 16, 2012)
###
Contact: Adam Furgatch: 310-967-5854 adam@11thAmendment.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Breaking News: Montana AG Refuses to Raise Potential Winning Argument in Citizens United Case
WASHINGTON, D.C. — June 11 — Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock is failing to “do all he can” — as he has publicly claimed — to win Montana’s U.S. Supreme Court battle against Citizens United. He has refused to put forth a possible winning argument in the case and he won’t explain why.
According to a report published on Saturday by Russell Mokhiber in the well-established Washington, D.C. newsletter, Corporate Crime Reporter, AG Bullock’s office told a lawyer who filed an amicus brief in support of Montana that the attorney general is refusing to assert Montana’s sovereign immunity from suit, paradoxically, out of fear that the immunity argument could actually win the case.
The case is American Tradition Partnership (ATP) v. Bullock which challenges the validity of the controversial Citizens United case as it applies to state elections and is now awaiting the Court’s decision whether to reconsider its 2010 ruling that struck down federal prohibitions of corporate electioneering.
Attorneys Carl Mayer and Rob Hager have each submitted amicus briefs on behalf of two organizations, The Eleventh Amendment Movement (TEAM) and Essential Information, respectively, arguing that ATP’s attempt to overturn Montana’s law should be rejected because the U.S. Constitution’s 10th and 11th Amendments prohibit the Supreme Court from hearing this case against the state of Montana. The 11th Amendment expressly forbids a private party from suing a state in federal court.
Mokhiber’s article says that when Mayer recommended that Montana’s attorney general raise the jurisdictional issue before the Supreme Court rules on the case, an assistant attorney general replied (by e-mail) that his office was reluctant to raise 11th Amendment issues because of “the potential implications in other contexts, if your theories were adopted.”
Mokhiber reports that Hager responded to the assistant attorney general that “this [statement] indicates that you do contemplate that these arguments are powerful enough to win this case. On this point we would seem able to agree.” Hager received no reply to his letter.
Hager, Mayer, and Mokhiber all tried — to no avail — to obtain more information from the office of the attorney general about these “implications in other contexts” considered so important as to justify withholding the potential winning argument in the ATP v. Bullock case.
On Friday, June 8, when Mokhiber called the assistant attorney general directly about this statement, the assistant attorney general told Mokhiber that he was heading into a conference call and promised he would call back within two hours with an explanation as to what the office meant by “implications” from raising the 11th Amendment.
Mokhiber says the assistant did not call back to explain the statement.
Instead, the attorney general’s Communications Officer, John Doran, indicated to Mokhiber that Attorney General Bullock does not intend to reveal his explanation in time for Montana to raise its sovereign immunity from suit prior to the Court’s decision.
Corporate Crime Reporter quotes Mayer: “Since this case is Montana’s and the country’s latest best chance for turning around the flood of money in politics caused by the Citizens United case, it is difficult to guess why Montana would refrain from making what they agree is the potential winning states’ rights argument out of fear about the effect victory of that argument might have on future unnamed contexts.”
Corporate Crime Reporter also quoted Mayer describing the possible winning vote count. “Since there are already four justices ready to support Montana because they disagree with Citizens United on its merits, the 11th Amendment argument need only be adopted by one of the five justices who strongly support states’ rights in order to win this case,” he said.
In a follow up interview for this report, Mayer, who recently won an important constitutional victory in a federal court in New York that overturned a section of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that permitted indefinite detentions of citizens in the U.S., said, “No one should have to guess Montana’s intentions here. I would think any legal reporter would want to call Attorney General Steve Bullock and ask what ‘context’ is possibly more important than having a better chance to win this landmark case, and why, unless the attorney general changes course, he will let down Montana and the 80% of Americans who want Citizens United defeated. His number is 406-444-2026. Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer also should be questioned, as he, too, has made public statements in support of Montana’s election laws, but has been stone cold silent on the state’s sovereign immunity arguments that we have provided to him. His number is 406-444-3111.”
Mayer added, “In my opinion, this is a basic and potentially serious litigation error, not to raise jurisdictional issues when available. At the very least, Montana’s chances would be greatly improved and there is absolutely no legal downside to raising this defense. But time is running out. Having failed to raise the issue in its Opposition Brief, Montana must now act quickly so as not to raise the implication that Montana is waiving its rights.”
Mr. Hager explained, “We have formally requested that the attorney general’s office immediately file a motion asserting Montana’s states’ rights defense. We have provided a one page draft to make it easier to assert Montana’s immunity. The draft, or their own version of it, can be filed in an hour. The last chance to do so may be June 13, prior to the Court’s scheduled June 14 Conference when this case could be decided.”
Hager added, “We have a political environment where the federal government is so corrupted by money in politics that only 17% of Americans report that they think the federal government has the “consent of the governed. It is extremely important that states assert their sovereign rights to protect their elections from succumbing to the same debilitating corruption. In this environment, any politician who cannot explain a failure to take every available action to protect a state’s sovereignty from overthrow by corrupt money — most of which derives from outside the state — must be subject to close questioning. It appears the Montana attorney general — who is now running for governor — intends to stonewall this questioning until it is too late to do anything about it. We look forward to learning what excuse he will ultimately give the voters of Montana for this failure.”
Hager concluded, “We urge all those opposed to Citizens United to call Attorney General Bullock and Governor Schweitzer and insist Montana assert its sovereign immunity by filing a motion in time — for the benefit of Montana and of the whole country.”
The original Corporate Crime Reporter article may be read at www.CorporateCrimeReporter.com Direct Link to Article: http://corporatecrimereporter.com/montana06092012.htm
The two 11th Amendment amicus briefs and a Summary may be viewed at TEAM’s website, LINK: http://www.11thamendment.org/2012/05/08/11th-amendment-supreme-court-briefs/
Case Citations from this story:
1. Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010)
2. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari: American Tradition Partnership, Inc., fka Western Tradition Partnership, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Steve Bullock, Attorney General of Montana, et al. – U.S. Supreme Court Docket # 11-1179
3. Hedges v. Obama, S.D.N.Y., Case No. 12-CV-331 (KBF)(Slip Opinion, May 16, 2012)
Quote Source — Attorney General Steve Bullock, 1/20/12: “I owe it to a century of Montanans going forward to do all I can to defend this (case) irrespective of what might happen in my next campaign.” http://ivn.us/2012/01/20/montana-supreme-court-decision-opposes-citizens-united/
Quote Source — Governor Brian Schweitzer, 5/3/12: “…I strongly believe Montanans, and our country, need to stand together to address the problem of corporate money in our elections.” http://freespeechforpeople.org/node/383
###
Contact: Adam Furgatch: 310-967-5854
For Immediate Release
Big Money Corporate Spending in Elections May Lose in Supreme Court: Citizens United Ruling Faces Imminent Reversal
WASHINGTON, D.C. — May 23 — Citizens United, the controversial 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows for virtually unlimited corporate spending in state elections, may face an immediate effective reversal if the Court refuses, on 11th Amendment constitutional grounds, to hear a case involving Citizens United and the State of Montana.
The Eleventh Amendment Movement (TEAM, www.11thAmendment.org), a non-partisan political action association based in Hawaii, last week filed an amicus curiae “friend-of-the-court” brief that raises the 11th Amendment jurisdictional issue in the current case of American Tradition Partnership vs. Steve Bullock (Montana Attorney General). That case involves a recent Montana Supreme Court decision that upheld the state’s own anti-corruption election finance laws in defiance of the federally mandated Citizens United ruling. Montana’s decision has now been petitioned for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court has not yet decided whether it will hear the appeal, but is expected to rule soon.
“The 11th Amendment to the Constitution forbids the Supreme Court from hearing this Montana case,” said Carl Mayer, lead attorney for TEAM. “Since the Court has no jurisdiction and must refuse the case, then Montana’s laws will automatically stand and Citizens United will be effectively reversed immediately, right here, right now. This is a result that the vast majority of Americans would welcome and we’re confident that the justices will uphold their duty to the Constitution in this important case.”
Adam Furgatch, a co-founder of TEAM, explained part of the 11th Amendment argument, “Besides the foundational constitutional principles at work here, the Citizens United folks made a fatal technical error in bringing this suit against Montana to the Supreme Court. They didn’t even file the papers properly and on those grounds alone, the case should be thrown out.”
The error in the appeal petition is how Montana is named as a defendant. According to Mr. Furgatch, “The state’s Attorney General (Steve Bullock) or other officers may not be named as defendants in their official capacity, yet the Citizens United petitioners did just that and made an ‘important, irreversible blunder.’”
Mr. Furgatch likened the situation to when “a baseball pitcher commits a balk with the winning run on third base or when the basketball is shot after the buzzer sounds. The Court’s umpires must now call it like they see it. Rules are rules and the justices must enforce them and throw the case out.”
Mr. Mayer added, “Of all the briefs filed and arguments made in this case, TEAM’s brief is one of only two that strike at the heart of the Court’s constitutional jurisdiction. In litigation, there is nothing more fundamental to winning a case than to deny jurisdiction to a court when it is not warranted. The 11th Amendment clearly restricts the Supreme Court in this case against a sovereign state and we can win solely on that basis.”
Mr. Mayer, fresh off of a recent victory in another high profile, constitutional legal battle where he successfully persuaded a federal judge to declare unconstitutional an Act of Congress that threatened to detain U.S citizens in military prisons without charges, called the 11th Amendment challenge in the Montana case “one of the most significant constitutional issues in American history.”
He summed up TEAM’s efforts, “Enforcing the 11th Amendment to deny the Supreme Court jurisdiction in the Montana case will allow Montana’s election laws to stand and Citizens United will be effectively reversed immediately. It will be a huge blow to those who would profit from unlimited election spending, and be a huge step towards getting corrupting money out of politics. We expect the Court to do the right thing and uphold the Constitution.”
TEAM’s website www.11thAmendment.org provides full text of the brief and other background information
Case Citations from this story:
1. Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010)
2. Montana Supreme Court decision: Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General, ___P.3d___, 363 Mont. 220 (Mont. 2011)
3. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari: American Tradition Partnership, Inc., fka Western Tradition Partnership, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Steve Bullock, Attorney General of Montana, et al. – U.S. Supreme Court Docket # 11-1179
4. Hedges v. Obama, S.D.N.Y., Case No. 12-CV-331 (KBF)(Slip Opinion, May 16, 2012)
###
Contact: Lia Martin: 310-464-6225
Lia.Martin@digitalmediaminds.com
May 9, 2012 Montana OKs 11th Amendment Supreme Court Challenge To Citizens United
HELENA, Montana — May 9 – The Montana Attorney General’s office has given permission for a legal brief to be filed with the U.S. Supreme Court that will argue the position that the 11th Amendment to the Constitution forbids the Court from taking jurisdiction and hearing a case involving Montana and Citizens United, the controversial 2010 Court decision that allows for virtually unlimited corporate spending in state elections. (Read more…)
May 1, 2012 Citizens United Decision Threatened By Supreme Court “Technical Error”
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A significant “technical error” in the wording of a petition now before the U.S. Supreme Court may force the Court to issue a ruling as early as June that will effectively negate their 2010 decision in the controversial election financing case commonly known as Citizens United. (read more..)