Federal Judiciary

No quick ruling on GOP appeal?

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

The Republican National Committee on Friday urged the Supreme Court to speed up its schedule for acting on the new GOP appeal challenging federal campaign finance law, but the timing it suggested would reduce significantly the chances for a ruling before the Court recesses for the summer.  (The appeal itself, filed Friday, is discussed in the post below.)  The motion to expedite, asking the Court at least to take its first look at the case before the recess, is here.

Noting that the Justice Department does not oppose the motion to shorten the scheduling of the case, the GOP challengers asked the Court not to give the Federal Election Commission more time to file a response to the appeal, thus assuring that the response would come on May 24.  In no event, the GOP motion said, should FEC be given any extension beyond June 7 — the last day this Term to arrange for the Court to consider whether to accept the case for review.  Since there would have to be filing of briefs after review were accepted, that almost certainly would put the case’s preparation beyond the Court’s likely recess for the summer, in late June or early July.

If, as is expected, the Court does accept the case for review, the GOP suggested that the case be set for “expedited briefing and argument.”  Conceivably, that could be done after the recess, with an oral argument scheduled before the Court opens a new Term on Oct. 4.  Such a schedule, though, would make it most unlikely that a final ruling would be handed down before the congressional election campaign ends Nov. 2, when voters go to the polls.  The Supreme Court returned to the bench early, last Sept. 9, to hear another speeded-up campaign finance case, but the final decision in that case did not emerge until more than four months later.

Arguing that the Court should act as quickly as it could, the GOP motion said that “with each day that passes,” it and its state and local party affiliates “are continuing to suffer irreparable harm to their First Amendment rights” as a result of campaign finance restrictions on their raising and spending so-called “soft money.”

Under the federal campaign finance law, challenges to the constitutionality of finance restrictions are supposed to be handled by the Supreme Court on an expedited schedule, but the law does not specify any time limits, so it is up to the Court to decide how to comply with that mandate.

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on April 23, 2010 (boomark / email).