Sanders Cnty. Republican Cent. Comm. v. Fox, et al., No. 12-35816 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThe Committee filed suit seeking a declaration that certain portions of a Montana statute making it a criminal offense for any political party to "endorse, contribute to, or make an expenditure to support or oppose a judicial candidate" in a nonpartisan judicial election, Mont. Code Ann. 13-35-231, were unconstitutional and requesting an injunction against its enforcement. The court concluded that, to the extent appellants challenged the permanent injunction against enforcement of section 13-35-231's ban on endorsements and expenditures, the court was bound to follow its published decision finding those provisions unconstitutional. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's entry of a permanent injunction as it pertains to those portions of the statute. However, the district court mistakenly entered a permanent injunction against the enforcement of section 13-35-231 in its entirety. Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court with instructions to revise the permanent injunction so that it enjoined only the statute's ban on endorsements and expenditures, and not the statute's ban on contributions.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s permanent injunction enjoining the State of Montana’s Attorney General and Commissioner of Political Practices from enforcing in its entirety a Montana statute making it a criminal offense for any political party to “endorse, contribute to, or make an expenditure to support or oppose a judicial candidate” in a nonpartisan judicial election, Mont. Code Ann. § 13-35-231. The panel held that to the extent that appellants challenged the permanent injunction against enforcement of section 13-35-231’s ban on endorsements and expenditures, the panel was bound to follow its prior published decision finding those provisions unconstitutional. See Sanders Cnty. Republican Cent. Comm. v. Bullock, 698 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court’s entry of a permanent injunction as it pertained to those portions of the statute. The panel noted that in its prior decision of September 17, 2012, the court had not reached the issue of the constitutionality of the statute’s ban on contributions and that no such challenge had subsequently been raised. The panel therefore remanded to the district court with instructions to revise the permanent injunction so that it enjoined only the statute’s ban on endorsements and expenditures, and not the statute’s ban on contributions.
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.