Respect Maine PAC v. McKee

Supreme Court

Respect Maine PAC v. McKee

178 L. Ed. 2d 346, 131 S. Ct. 445, 562 U.S. 996, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8326

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 22, 2010

DocketNo. 10A362

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 178 L. Ed. 2d 346 (Respect Maine PAC v. McKee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Respect Maine PAC v. McKee, 178 L. Ed. 2d 346, 131 S. Ct. 445, 562 U.S. 996, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8326 (U.S. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Application for an injunction, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Applicants are correct to note that relief was granted in McComish v. Bennett, 560 U.S. 961, 130 S. Ct. 3408, 177 L. Ed. 2d 320 (2010), which concerned a constitutional challenge to an Arizona law similar to the Maine law challenged by applicants here. The McComish applicants, however, requested a stay of an appeals court decision, whereas applicants here are asking for an injunction against enforcement of a presumptively constitutional state legislative act. Such a request “demands a significantly higher justification” than a request for a stay, because unlike a stay, an injunction “does not simply suspend judicial alteration of the status quo but grants judicial intervention that has been withheld by lower courts.” Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U.S. 1312, 1313, 107 S. Ct. 682, 93 L. Ed. 2d 692 (1986) (Scalia, J., in chambers). In light of these considerations, and given the difficulties in fashioning relief so close to the election, applicants’ request for extraordinary relief is denied.

Justice Scalia and Justice Alito would grant the application for an injunction as to the matching fund provisions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Application for an injunction, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Applicants are correct to note that relief was granted in McComish v. Bennett, 560 U.S. 961, 130 S. Ct. 3408, 177 L. Ed. 2d 320 (2010), which concerned a constitutional challenge to an Arizona law similar to the Maine law challenged by applicants here. The McComish applicants, however, requested a stay of an appeals court decision, whereas applicants here are asking for an injunction against enforcement of a presumptively constitutional state legislative act. Such a request “demands a significantly higher justification” than a request for a stay, because unlike a stay, an injunction “does not simply suspend judicial alteration of the status quo but grants judicial intervention that has been withheld by lower courts.” Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U.S. 1312, 1313, 107 S. Ct. 682, 93 L. Ed. 2d 692 (1986) (Scalia, J., in chambers). In light of these considerations, and given the difficulties in fashioning relief so close to the election, applicants’ request for extraordinary relief is denied.

Justice Scalia and Justice Alito would grant the application for an injunction as to the matching fund provisions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 L. Ed. 2d 346, 131 S. Ct. 445, 562 U.S. 996, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/respect-maine-pac-v-mckee-scotus-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack