Indiana Right to Life Victory Fund v. Morales, No. 22-1562 (7th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

The Fund appealed the dismissal of its challenge to Indiana’s prohibition on corporate contributions to political action committees (PACs) for independent expenditures. Following oral argument, the Fund filed a “Motion Requesting Judicial Notice,” explaining that Morales has succeeded Sullivan as Indiana’s Secretary of State and has replaced Sullivan as a party to the case. Under Fed.R.App.P. 43(c)(2) the substitution happens automatically without any motion. The Fund sought judicial notice of the fact that there is no record evidence that Morales has taken any steps to disavow enforcement of Indiana’s Election Code prohibition on corporate contributions to PACs for purposes of independent expenditures.

The Seventh Circuit denied the motion as “unnecessary” and “improper.” Nothing about Morales becoming Secretary of State calls jurisdiction into question. Nor does it materially alter anything about the issues. The Fund’s motion seeks one of two things, neither of which would be an appropriate use of judicial notice. It may attempt to define the likelihood that Secretary Morales will enforce the Election Code or it might attempt to highlight what it sees as a gap in the evidentiary record—that Secretary Morales has yet to make a statement regarding state regulation of independent-expenditure PACs. Judicial notice is only permitted for adjudicative facts “not subject to reasonable dispute.”

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 26, 2023.

Download PDF

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-1562 INDIANA RIGHT TO LIFE VICTORY FUND, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DIEGO MORALES, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 1:21-cv-2796 — Sarah Evans Barker, Judge. ____________________ SUBMITTED JANUARY 25, 2023 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 2023 ____________________ Before EASTERBROOK, SCUDDER, and LEE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Following oral argument, the Indiana Right to Life Victory Fund invoked Federal Rule of Evidence 201 and filed what it called “Appellants’ Motion Requesting Judicial Notice.” The Fund’s motion explains that Diego Morales has succeeded Holli Sullivan as Indiana’s Secretary of State and has replaced Sullivan as a party to this case. This process is commonplace in litigation involving public officials—so much so that there is a Federal Rule directly on point. See Fed. 2 No. 22-1562 R. App. P. 43(c)(2). Under the Federal Rules, the substitution happens automatically and does not require any motion by any party. Still, the Fund filed this motion urging us to take judicial notice of the fact that there is no evidence in the record that Secretary of State Morales has taken any steps to disavow enforcement of the prohibition in Indiana’s Election Code on corporate contributions to political action committees for purposes of independent expenditures, and that the record shows only two out of ten defendants have disavowed enforcement. The motion is unnecessary, improper, and denied. Nothing about Morales becoming Indiana’s sixty-third Secretary of State calls our appellate or subject matter jurisdiction into question. Nor does it materially alter anything about the issues presented on appeal. So there is no need for judicial notice as to party substitution. Rule 43 does this work. But the Fund goes further, requesting judicial notice as to Secretary Morales’s position on enforcing specific campaignfinance laws. At bottom, the Fund’s motion seeks one of two things, neither of which would be an appropriate use of judicial notice. One reading of the motion is that it tries to define the likelihood that Secretary Morales and other Indiana officials will enforce certain provisions of the Election Code. But that is an argument, and judicial notice is only permitted for adjudicative facts “not subject to reasonable dispute.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). This limitation is even more important before the courts of appeals, which do not sit as finders of fact. No. 22-1562 3 Or perhaps the Fund is trying to highlight what it sees as a gap in the evidentiary record—that Secretary Morales has yet to make a statement regarding state regulation of independent-expenditure PACs. Setting aside that this, too, is a form of argument, it is a waste of time to seek judicial notice to memorialize the contours of the record. If the absence of evidence in the record were an adjudicative fact subject to judicial notice, courts of appeals would be swamped with motions like this one. See In re Lisse, 905 F.3d 495, 497 (7th Cir. 2018) (Easterbrook, J., in chambers) (“When evidence is ‘not subject to reasonable dispute,’ there’s no need to multiply the paperwork by filing motions.”). The record speaks for itself. The Fund’s motion is DENIED.

Primary Holding

Seventh Circuit rejects a motion requesting judicial notice with respect to the appellate record in a case concerning political contributions.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.