• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
36 results

Michael Quinn Sullivan, Petitioner v. Texas Ethics Commission

Docket 24-803, Supreme Court of the United States (Jan. 28, 2025)
DeadlineMotion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 24, 2025., Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 24, 2025 to April 24, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
Petitioner Michael Quinn Sullivan
Respondent Texas Ethics Commission
Other Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Brief amicus curiae of Institute for - Proof of Service

Document Michael Quinn Sullivan, Petitioner v. Texas Ethics Commission, 24-803, Brief amicus curiae of Institute for, Proof of Service (U.S. Mar. 24, 2025)
Supreme Court of the Anited States
I HEREBY CERTIFY thatall parties required to be served, have been served, on this 24day of March, 2025, in accordance with U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.3, three (3) copies of the foregoing BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERbyplacing said copies in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed as listed below.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Amicus brief of Institute for Free - Certificate of Word Count

Document Michael Quinn Sullivan, Petitioner v. Texas Ethics Commission, 24-803, Amicus brief of Institute for Free, Certificate of Word Count (U.S. Mar. 24, 2025)
As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the document contains 4,257 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).
declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 24th day of March, 2025.
Sworn to and subscribed before me on this 24th day of March, 2025.
Notary Public State of New York No. 01BR6004935 Qualified in Richmond County Commission Expires March 30, 2026
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amicus curiae of Institute for - Main Document

Document Michael Quinn Sullivan, Petitioner v. Texas Ethics Commission, 24-803, Brief amicus curiae of Institute for, Main Document (U.S. Mar. 24, 2025)
The Institute for Justice is a nonprofit, public in- terest law firm committed to defending the essential foundations of a free society by securing greater pro- tection for individual liberty and by restoring consti- tutional limits on the power of government.
567 (2009); Dick Carpenter & 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.
First, this case presents not only an opportunity to analyze Texas’s lobbying registration law under mod- ern First Amendment doctrine, but also to conduct that analysis in light of modern social science under- standing about the costs and benefits of mandated disclosure.
Yet, as this case shows, such communication can trigger burdensome regula- tions and expose speakers to significant liability whenever the state characterizes this activity as “lob- bying.” In section I, Amicus will discuss why constitu- tional scrutiny of these burdens should be informed by what social science has actually found about the benefits and costs of mandated disclosure.
Although this evidence focuses chiefly on voter behavior and campaign-finance disclosure, it is instructive because lobbying registration and disclo- sure is thought to operate in essentially the same way, by enabling elected officials to better evaluate the competing arguments they are exposed to from various constituencies.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amici curiae of United States - Main Document

Document Michael Quinn Sullivan, Petitioner v. Texas Ethics Commission, 24-803, Brief amici curiae of United States, Main Document (U.S. Mar. 21, 2025)
This Court’s seminal opinion evaluating the constitutionality of a lobbyist-registration law came 70 years ago in United States v. Harriss—long before the robust First Amendment jurisprudence and modern tiers of scrutiny were developed.
“To withstand this scrutiny, ‘the strength of the governmental interest must reflect the seriousness of the actual burden on First Amendment rights.”’ John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 196 (2010) (quoting Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 554 U.S. 724, 744 (2008)).
Applying the appropriate tier of scrutiny when evaluating lobbyist disclosure requirements is crucial to ensuring protected political speech is not unlawfully restricted or silenced.
“[T]he ‘line between quid pro quo corruption and general influence may seem vague at times, but the distinction must be respected in order to safeguard basic First Amendment rights.’” Fed. Election Comm’n v. Cruz, 596 U.S. 289, 308 (2022) (quoting McCutcheon, 572 U.S. at 209).
Because the same types of laws are evaluated unevenly by courts at every level, in both state and federal systems, the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to engage in political speech is subject to confusion.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amicus curiae of Institute for - Certificate of Word Count

Document Michael Quinn Sullivan, Petitioner v. Texas Ethics Commission, 24-803, Brief amicus curiae of Institute for, Certificate of Word Count (U.S. Mar. 24, 2025)
In the Supreme Court of the United States
As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I, Paul Sherman, counsel of record for amicus and a member of the Bar of this Court, certify that the Brief of the Institute for Justice as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners in the above-entitled case complies with the typeface requirement of Supreme Court Rule 33.1(b), being prepared in Century Schoolbook 12 point for the text and 10 point for the footnotes, and that the petition complies with the word limit of Supreme Court Rule 33.1(g).
It contains 3,360 words, excluding the parts that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).
s/ Paul Sherman Paul Sherman Counsel of Record
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Amicus brief of Institute for Free - Main Document

Document Michael Quinn Sullivan, Petitioner v. Texas Ethics Commission, 24-803, Amicus brief of Institute for Free, Main Document (U.S. Mar. 24, 2025)
But seventy years ago, the Court upended that tradition when it held that a lobbying registration requirement furthers the “vital” interest of making a legislator’s job easier.
Such speech does not raise any appearance of quid pro quo corruption, and members of the public have no general interest in knowing who is talking to elected officials.
Recent decisions make clear that America’s “honorable tradition” of protecting anonymous speech, McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 357, puts a heavy burden on governmental efforts to compel disclosure, see AFPF, 594 U.S. at 611–15.
The Court should grant certiorari to revisit Harriss and make clear that the government has no interest in regulating lobbying when it takes the form of pure political speech like Petitioner’s.
“[O]ur society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.” Id. A lobbying registration law requires speakers to identify themselves and who they’re speaking for—a clear burden on “the right to remain anonymous” that the First Amendment protects.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief amici curiae of United States - Certificate of Word Count

Document Michael Quinn Sullivan, Petitioner v. Texas Ethics Commission, 24-803, Brief amici curiae of United States, Certificate of Word Count (U.S. Mar. 21, 2025)
As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the document contains 1,947 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).
declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 21st day of March, 2025.
Sworn to and subscribed before me on this 21st day of March, 2025.
Notary Public State of New York No. 01BR6004935 Qualified in Richmond County Commission Expires March 30, 2026
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 >>