Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Respect Maine PAC et al. v. McKee, Member, Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al., 2010 — 562 U.S. 996 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Respect Maine PAC et al. v. McKee, Member, Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al.
562 U.S. 996·Supreme Court of the United States·2010
Justice Scalia and Justice Alito would grant the application for an injunction as to the matching fund provisions.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
October 22, 2010
No. 10A362.
Respect Maine PAC et al. v. McKee, Member, Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al.
[MAJORITY]
D. C. Me. Application for injunction, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Applicants are correct to note that relief was granted in McComish v. Bennett, 560 U. S. 961 (2010), which concerned a constitutional challenge to an Arizona law similar to the Maine law challenged by applicants here. The McComish applicants, however, requested a stay of an appeals court decision, whereas applicants here are asking for an injunction against enforcement of a presumptively constitutional state legislative act. Such a request “demands a significantly higher justification” than a request for a stay because, unlike a stay, an injunction “does not simply suspend judicial alteration of the status quo but grants judicial intervention that has been withheld by lower courts.” Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U. S. 1312, 1313 (1986) (Scalia, J., in chambers). In light of these considerations, and given the difficulties in fashioning relief so close to the election, applicants’ request for extraordinary relief is denied.
Justice Scalia and Justice Alito would grant the application for an injunction as to the matching fund provisions.