BOONE COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, HARDIN COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, and JESSAMINE COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE v. H. DAVID WALLACE, LAURA MARIE BENNETT, JESSICA BURKE, RICHARD LARKIN, ADRIAN MENDIONDO, THOMAS O’BRIEN, J. BISSELL ROBERTS, and JOHN STEFFEN, in their official capacities as board members of the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance - Articles

All Content

BOONE COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, HARDIN COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, and JESSAMINE COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE v. H. DAVID WALLACE, LAURA MARIE BENNETT, JESSICA BURKE, RICHARD LARKIN, ADRIAN MENDIONDO, THOMAS O’BRIEN, J. BISSELL ROBERTS, and JOHN STEFFEN, in their official capacities as board members of the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Mar 19, 2025

Head Comment: GRIFFIN delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Christopher Wiest, CHRIS WIEST, ATTY AT LAW, PLLC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Leslie M. Saunders, KENTUCKY REGISTRY OF ELECTION FINANCE, Frankfort, Kentucky for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Christopher Wiest, Theodore J. Roberts, CHRIS WIEST, ATTY AT LAW, PLLC, Covington, Kentucky, Thomas Bruns, BRUNS CONNELL VOLLMAR ARMSTRONG LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Leslie M. Saunders, KENTUCKY REGISTRY OF ELECTION FINANCE, Frankfort, Kentucky for Appellees.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Matthew F. Kuhn, John H. Heyburn, Elizabeth Hedges, OFFICE OF THE KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Amicus Curiae.

Judge(s): MOORE, GILMAN, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Frankfort

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Three Kentucky Republican Party county executive committees (“the executive committees”) challenge the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance’s (“the Registry”) requirement that they register as a political issues committee to expend funds in support of a state constitutional amendment that was on the November 2024 general-election ballot. The district court denied the executive committees’ application for a preliminary injunction. Because we initially construed the Registry’s requirement as a ban on the executive committees’ speech, we granted an injunction pending appeal of the preliminary-injunction denial. Upon further briefing and oral argument, we now conclude that the Registry has imposed only a disclosure requirement on the executive committees, which is sufficiently tailored to the Registry’s interests in providing the public with timely and accurate information about ballot-issue campaigns. We accordingly AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction.

Attachments: