Calzone v. Summers, No. 17-2654 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Missouri's lobbying requirements violate his freedom of speech and right to petition the government, and that the law is facially invalid because ordinary citizens do not have fair notice of whom it covers. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's order denying plaintiff a preliminary injunction.
The court held that Missouri's application of the law to plaintiff violates the First Amendment, because his political activities did not involve the transfer of money or anything of value, either to him or anyone else, and Missouri's interest in transparency did not reflect the seriousness of the actual burden on his First Amendment rights. The court also held that, even though the law does not define or otherwise explain what "designated" means, it is not vague. Instead, the court applied the word's common and ordinary meaning, in context, and held that, just because the law is broad does not mean that it is ambiguous, much less constitutionally vague. Accordingly, the court remanded for further consideration of plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction.
Court Description: Stras, Author, for the Court En Banc, joined by Smith, Chief Judge, and Gruender, Erickson, Grasz,and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - First Amendment. District court's order denying preliminary injunction is vacated. As applied challenge to Missouri law that requires an individual and nonprofit business, who are neither paid nor expend money in speaking to legislators, to register as a legislative lobbyist violates the First Amendment. Applying law in this circumstance does not bear a substantial relationship to its anti-corruption interest or transparency interest. Facial challenge to statute's application to anyone "designated" to act as a lobbyist is not unconstitutionally vague. Judge Grasz concurs, addressing level of scrutiny to apply to lobbying disclosure laws. Judge Colloton dissents, joined by Loken and Benton. Judge Shepherd dissents, joined by Colloton and Kelly.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on November 28, 2018.
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.