Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Brief amic...
) ) I, Simone Cintron, being duly sworn according to law and being over the age of 18, upon my oath depose and say that:
That on the 26th day of March, 2024, I served the within Brief of Citizen Action Defense Fund as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners in the above-captioned matter upon: Alan Gura Institute for Free Speech 1150 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 801 Washington, DC 20036 202.301.3300 agura@ifs.org Attorneys for Petitioners by sending three copies of same, addressed to each individual respectively, through the United States Postal Service, by Priority Mail, an electronic version was also served by email to each individual.
Tara M. Steeley Deputy City Attorney City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102-4602 415.554.4655 tara.steeley@sfcityatty.org Counsel for Respondents
That on the same date as above, I sent to this Court forty copies of the within Brief of Citizen Action Defense Fund as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners through the Overnight Next Day Federal Express, postage prepaid.
Notary Public State of New York No. 01BR6004935 Qualified in Richmond County Commission Expires March 30, 2026 #115039
Cite Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Brief amicus c
+ More Snippets
Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Brief amic...
Supreme Court of the Anited States No ON E, SAN FRANCISCANS OPPOSING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION ACT,e¢al., Petitioners, Vv.
DAVID CHIU,e¢al., Respondents.
I HEREBY CERTIFY thatall parties required to be served, have been served, on this 25" day of March, 2024, in accordance with U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.3, three (3) copies of the foregoing BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE DR. DAVID PRIMO AND DR. JEFFREY MILYO IN SUPPORTOF PETITIONERSbyplacingsaid copies in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, addressedaslisted below.
syn PIERAY te, .” ere?
YB oa .S ‘ Mott : a - ?
Cite Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Brief amici cu
+ More Snippets
Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Brief amic...
Dick M. Carpenter II & Jeffrey Milyo, The Public’s Right to Know Versus Compelled Speech: What Does Social Science Research Tell Us About the Benefits and Costs of Campaign Finance Disclosure in Non-Candidate Elections?, 40 Fordham Urb.
If “exacting scrutiny” is to live up to its name, dis- closure regimes—particularly novel ones that go be- yond those previously upheld—should be justified by more than platitudes about sunlight, open govern- ment, and “the right to know.” This Court should grant certiorari to confirm that exacting scrutiny is a rigorous standard that requires real evidence.
In the context of contribution limits, for example, this Court has held that “[t]he quantum of empirical evidence needed to satisfy heightened ju- dicial scrutiny of legislative judgments will vary up or down with the novelty and plausibility of the justifi- cation raised.” Nixon v. Shrink Mo.
567 (2009); see also Dick M. Carpenter II & Jeffrey Milyo, The Public’s Right to Know Versus Compelled Speech: What Does Social Science Research Tell Us About the Benefits and Costs of Campaign Finance Disclosure in Non-Candidate Elections?, 40 Fordham Urb.
That is, groups devoted to public service, not politics.”16 Yet as this amicus brief goes to print, the headline on the Si- erra’s Club’s main webpage reads, “Together, we can help deepen the movement for a livable planet, safe communities, and a democracy that works for every- one,” alongside a picture featuring protestors holding signs such as “Voting is Climate Action.”17 The Sierra Club is a 501(c)4 clearly engaged with politics, so the desire to exempt it from disclosure requirements seems tied to an assessment of its policy goals.
Cite Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Brief amici cu
+ More Snippets
Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Brief amic...
No. 23-926 In The Supreme Court of the United States
In compliance with this Court’s Rule 33.1(h), I, hereby certify that the Brief of Amici Curiae Dr. David Primo and Dr. Jeffrey Milyo In Support of the Petitioners in the above-captioned case contains 4,233 words, excluding the parts that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d) and that it complies with the typeface requirement of Supreme Court Rule 33.1(b), being prepared in Century Schoolbook 12-point font for the text and 10-point font for the footnotes.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: March 25, 2024.
901 N. Glebe Rd., Ste.
Cite Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Brief amici cu
+ More Snippets
Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Petition fo...
SAN FRANCISCO ADVOCACY; and TODD DAVID, Petitioners,
DAVID CHIU, in his official capacity as San Francisco City Attorney; SAN FRANCISCO ETHICS COMMISSION; BROOKE JENKINS, in her official capacity as San Francisco District Attorney; and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondents.
As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI in the above entitled case complies with the typeface requirement of Supreme Court Rule 33.1(b), being prepared in New Century Schoolbook 12 point for the text and 10 point for the footnotes, and this brief contains 6895 words, excluding the parts that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d), as needed.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of February, 2024.
I am duly authorized under the laws of the State of Nebraska to administer oaths.
Cite Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Petition for a
+ More Snippets
Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Petition fo...
36a C. Remaining Preliminary Injunction Factors The district court concluded that none of the re- maining Winter factors weighed in favor of an injunc- tion, in part because Plaintiffs’ argument as to those factors largely relied on their ...
In nonethe- less upholding a substantially more burdensome occu- pation of 35% or more of a political ad’s physical space, the panel relies on two flawed points that only under- score the damage being done to the First Amendment in ...
Rather than defend this obviously unconstitutional restriction, the panel assumed that such an application of the challenged ordinance would raise serious constitutional issues, but it nonetheless upheld the denial of a preliminary ...
Nonetheless, when it is 64a time for a political speaker to create its advertise- ments, Proposition F requires the speaker to promi- nently display the secondary contributor’s name.
C. Remaining Preliminary Injunction Factors The district court concluded that none of the re- maining Winter factors weighed in favor of an injunc- tion, in part because Plaintiffs’ argument as to those factors largely relied on their position ...
Cite Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Petition for a
+ More Snippets
Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Petition fo...
SAN FRANCISCO ADVOCACY; and TODD DAVID, Petitioners,
I, Renee Goss, of lawful age, being duly sworn, upon my oath state that I did, on the 23rd day of February, 2024, send out from Omaha, NE 1 package(s) containing 3 copies of the PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI in the above entitled case.
1150 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 801 Washington, DC 20036 202.301.3300 agura@ifs.org Counsel for Petitioners Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of February, 2024.
I am duly authorized under the laws of the State of Nebraska to administer oaths.
Counsel for Respondents: Tara M. Steeley Deputy City Attorney City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102-4602 415.554.4655 tara.steeley@sfcityatty.org
Cite Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Petition for a
+ More Snippets
Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Petition fo...
... than simply compelling the disclosure of information that furthers no sufficiently important governmental interest, Proposition F will actually en- courage voters to draw inaccurate conclusions” as 17 they speculate about nonexistent ...
Cite Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Petition for a
+ More Snippets
Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Applicatio...
Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Petitioners No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Housing Production Act (“No on E”); Edwin M. Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club PAC Sponsored by Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy (“Ed Lee Dems”); and Todd David, respectfully request that the time to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in this matter be extended for thirty days to and including February 23, 2024.
Accordingly, San Francisco compels political advertisers to name, in addition other sundry disclaimers, up to nine separate donors in their ads (three primary and up to six secondary).
Ed Lee Dems finds this risk unacceptable, especially as its mission includes working to empower young Asian Pacific Islander (“API”) people in the political process and to support strong API leaders.
“The simple interest in providing voters with additional relevant information does not justify a state requirement that a writer make statements or disclosures she would otherwise omit.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 348 (1995) (emphasis added).
Far from providing voters relevant information about the source of a speaker’s support, San Francisco’s secondary donor speech mandate invites rank speculation about relationships that may not exist.
Cite Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Application to
+ More Snippets
Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Applicatio...
C. Remaining Preliminary Injunction Factors The district court concluded that none of the remaining Winter factors weighed in favor of an injunction, in part because Plaintiffs’ argument as to those factors largely relied on their position ...
In nonetheless upholding a substantially more burdensome occupation of 35% or more of a political ad’s physical space, the panel relies on two flawed points that only underscore the damage being done to the First Amendment in this ...
Rather than defend this obviously unconstitutional restriction, the panel assumed that such an application of the challenged ordinance would raise serious constitutional issues, but it nonetheless upheld the denial of a preliminary ...
Nonetheless, when it is time for a political speaker to create its advertisements, Proposition F requires the speaker to prominently display the secondary contributor’s name.
Cite Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Application to
+ More Snippets
Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Applicatio...
In the Supreme Court of the United States
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Housing Production Act; Edwin M. Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club PAC Sponsored by Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy; and Todd David,
Petitioners, David Chiu, in his official capacity as San Francisco City Attorney; San Francisco Ethics Commission; Brooke Jenkins, in her official capacity as San Francisco District Attorney; and City and County of San Francisco,
I, Alan Gura, counsel for Petitioner and a member of the bar of this Court, certify that on December 1, 2023, I caused a copy of the Application to Extend Time to File a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the above-entitled case to be sent via Federal Express to Tara M. Steeley, Deputy City Attorney, City Hall, Room 234, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA 94102-4602, 415.554.4655, counsel for Respondents herein.
I further certify that all parties required to be served have
Cite Document
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Care Housing Production Act, et al., Petitioners v. David Chiu, in His Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney, et al., 23-926, Application to
+ More Snippets
Can’t find
a case you think should be here?
Use our supplemental search tool to find
dockets that you may not see here.
Start a Supplemental Search
Our supplemental search tool searches the government's
database directly, ensuring you get complete results.
Note that for flat-rate users, supplemental search on Federal
Courts costs $0.10/search. Non Federal Courts are free. For
pay-as-you-go members, see
our detailed
pricing page.
