United States Ninth Circuit

In a suit seeking injunctive relief and a declaration that a Montana statute, which makes it a criminal offense for any political party to "endorse, contribute to, or make an expenditure to support or oppose a judicial candidate", is unconstitutional, district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is reversed where: 1) plaintiff has clearly shown that the statute restricts it's exercise of its First Amendment rights; 2) because the statute is a content-based restriction on political speech and association, it is subject to strict scrutiny; 3) Montana has shown neither that the statute is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest nor that it is narrowly tailored to that purpose; 4) plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if a preliminary injunction were not granted; 5) because Montana's ban on party endorsements of judicial candidates offends the First Amendment, the balance of hardships favors the plaintiff; and 6) the public interest favors the requested injunction.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/18/2012
• Published 09/18/2012

Judges

• Rakoff

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel