Catholic Ldrshp Coaltn of TX, et al v. David Reism, No. 12-50732 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-50732 Document: 00511933318 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________ FILED July 25, 2012 No. 12-50732 _____________________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk CATHOLIC LEADERSHIP COALITION OF TEXAS, doing business as Texas Leadership Coalition; TEXAS LEADERSHIP COALITION-INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC ADVOCACY, Plaintiffs - Appellants v. DAVID A. REISMAN, In his official capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Ethics Commission; HUGH C. AKIN, In his offiicial capacity as a member of the Texas Ethics Commission; TOM HARRISON, In his official capacity as a member of the Texas Ethics Commission; JIM CLANCY, In his official capacity as a member of the Texas Ethics Commission; PAUL W. HOBBY, In his official capacity as a member of the Texas Ethics Commission; BOB LONG, In his official capacity as a member of the Texas Ethics Commission; PAULA M. MENDOZA, In her official capacity as a member of the Texas Ethics Commission; TOM RAMSAY, In his official capacity as a member of the Texas Ethics Commission; CHASE UNTERMEYER; DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN REED, In her official capacity as District Attorney for Bexar County, Texas, Defendants - Appellees __________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin __________________________ 1 Case: 12-50732 Document: 00511933318 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Based on the limited record before us, we are unpersuaded that there is a likelihood of success on the merits of Appellants First Amendment challenge to the sixty-day waiting period in TEX. ELEC. CODE ยง 253.037(a)(1). As a result, we do not reach the other provisions challenged. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants motion for preliminary injunction. We AFFIRM that ruling and DENY any other pending motions. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
