OPAWL - BUILDING AAPI FEMINIST LEADERSHIP; NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS; ELISA BREDENDIEK; PETER QUILLIGAN; JOHN GERRATH v. DAVE YOST, in his official capacity as Ohio Attorney General; FRANK LAROSE, in his official capacity as Ohio Secretary of State - Articles

All Content

OPAWL - BUILDING AAPI FEMINIST LEADERSHIP; NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS; ELISA BREDENDIEK; PETER QUILLIGAN; JOHN GERRATH v. DAVE YOST, in his official capacity as Ohio Attorney General; FRANK LAROSE, in his official capacity as Ohio Secretary of State

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Oct 8, 2024

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON MOTION AND REPLY: T. Elliot Gaiser, Michael J. Hendershot, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ON RESPONSE: Elisabeth C. Frost, Jyoti Jasrasaria, Melinda K. Johnson, ELIAS LAW GROUP LLP, Washington, D.C., C. Benjamin Cooper, Kaela King, COOPER ELLIOTT, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Jason Walta, Philip A. Hostak, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Washington, D.C., Nathan Johnson, THE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, Columbus, Ohio, for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): McKEAGUE, THAPAR, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Ohio passed a law to stop foreign money from influencing its elections. The law bans foreign nationals from spending money to support or defeat ballot initiatives. It also bans foreign nationals from contributing to candidates in state elections. After plaintiffs brought a First Amendment challenge, the district court found that Ohio’s law violates the rights of lawful permanent residents. The district court preliminarily enjoined Ohio from enforcing its new campaign finance law with respect to all foreign nationals. Ohio appealed the district court’s decision. It also asked us for an emergency stay of the district court’s order so that Ohio can enforce its law while we consider the merits of the appeal. Because our initial review suggests that the district court’s First Amendment analysis was flawed, we now grant Ohio’s motion for a stay of the district court’s order.

Attachments: