Tag: amicus briefs

Federal Contractors Shouldn’t Lose First Amendment Rights

From the Boston Tea Party of 1773 to today’s Tea Party movement, from suffragettes to Occupiers, freedom of political association has always been this country’s hallmark. Importantly, this First Amendment freedom extends to campaign contributions. As the Supreme Court affirmed in the 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo,“the right of association is a basic constitutional freedom that is closely allied to freedom of speech and a right which, like free speech, lies at the foundation of a free society.”

The Buckley ruling has since survived many assaults—including, most notably, Citizens United v. FEC—though Citizens United exposed certain instabilities in Buckley’s frameworkIn any event, challenges continue to arise at the intersection of campaign finance law, political association rights, and the freedom of speech.

An important one comes from three individuals who have business contracts with the federal government. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act’s section 441c(a), “any person who is negotiating for, or performing under, a contract with the federal government is banned from making a contribution to a political party, committee, or candidate for federal officer.” Accordingly, the three plaintiffs are prohibited from making their intended campaign contributions and thus from an important form of political participation. This rule applies even to someone like name plaintiff Professor Wendy E. Wagner, who derives only a fraction of her income from the federal contract.

Together with the Center for Competitive Politics, Cato last week filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the plaintiffs should be able to exercise their right to political association and speech by contributing to political campaigns. Specifically, we argue that section 441(c) is unique in that it entirely bans contributions by a class of individual citizens. 

In McConnell v. FEC,the only case where the Supreme Court addressed an outright ban on contributions by a class of individuals—the ban on campaign contributions by minors originally in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform,” which McConnell otherwise substantially upheld—the Court struck it down as overly broad and because the government didn’t give sufficient justification. What’s clear from that ruling is that for a ban on political speech and association to be constitutional, the government must show that its targeted class of people is somehow too dangerous to be allowed to participate in the political process, and also that the ban applies only to that set of uniquely dangerous people. Section 441(c) doesn’t meet this test.

If the government wants to ban her from this important form of political participation, then it must give more than bare assertions of the specter of potential corruption.

The D.C. Circuit will hear argument in Wagner v. FEC on September 30.

Community Associations Have Property Rights Too

The U.S. housing market has seen a major shift in the past 30 years: the rise of the community association. In 1970, only 1 percent of U.S. homes were community association members; today, more than half of new housing is subject to association membership, including condominium buildings. These organizations provide substantial benefits, including community facilities, maintenance, and rules designed to preserve property values, in exchange for assessment fees.

Accordingly, Mariner’s Cove Townhomes Association v. United States affects the rights of the more than 60 million Americans currently living in these associations. This case arises from the federal government’s taking 14 of 58 townhouses from one development in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Mariner’s Cove owned a right to collect dues that was appended to those 14 townhomes, and sued the government for extinguishing that valuable right without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

In contrast to most lower courts, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that “the right to collect assessments, or real covenants generally” are not subject to Takings Clause analysis. In other words, the government can take those rights without paying anything to the owners. Cato and a group of esteemed professors, including Richard Epstein, James W. Ely Jr., and Ilya Somin, has submitted an amicus brief supporting Mariner’s Cove and arguing that the Supreme Court should take the case to clarify whether community association fees are compensable property under the Fifth Amendment.

Without such clarification, these beneficial private communities will be undercut. Such associations often shoulder the burden of providing and maintaining infrastructure, services, and utilities, which allows for more diverse and customizable amenities for homeowners than if those decisions were left with remote municipal governments. Because of these benefits, and because they increase the tax base, local governments are increasingly requiring developers to structure developments as community associations.

The perverse implications of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling are clear: it would allow for local governments to require he creation of a community association, benefit from the resulting private delivery of services while collecting taxes from its members, and later take the property without even paying back the very fees that enabled the government’s benefit. And the Fifth Circuit’s holding affects more than simply community associations. The court’s reference to “real covenants generally” implicates conservation easements, for example, which restrict the development and use of land for preserving the land’s natural, historic, or ecological features. This precedent would make association land an attractive option for uncompensated government takings.

The ruling also clashes with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District: that an income stream from real property is a compensable interest under the Fifth Amendment. For these reasons, we urge the Supreme Court to take the case and to recognize the compensable property rights of the Mariner’s Cove Townhomes Association and the millions of other Americans choosing—and paying—to live in a community association.

Requiring Equal Protection Doesn’t Violate the Equal Protection Clause

It’s unusual that the Supreme Court would choose to review an affirmative action case even though Fisher v. UT-Austin was still pending. Ordinarily, when faced with a second case on the same legal issue, the justices “hold” it until they decide the first, then either send the second one back to the lower court to apply the newly announced rule or, perhaps, schedule it for oral argument on any additional issues that need to be addressed. Yet Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action is no ordinary case. 

Schuette asks whether a ban on racial preferences — or at least how that ban was enacted — violates the Equal Protection Clause, whereas Fisher asked whether their use does. In Schuette, 58% of Michigan voters approved Proposal 2 (a.k.a. the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), a state constitutional amendment that prohibited racial preferences in public education, employment, or contracting. That ban was challenged by a coalition of groups and individuals who support the continued use of affirmative action, particularly at institutions of higher education.

A federal district court upheld the ban, but then a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck it down by a 2-1 vote. The full Sixth Circuit then agreed that Prop 2 was unconstitutional, in a contentious 8-7 ruling that produced five separate dissenting opinions. Now before the Supreme Court, Cato has joined the Pacific Legal Foundation and four other organizations on an amicus brief arguing that Michigan voters have acted constitutionally by prohibiting race- and sex-based discrimination or preferential treatment in public university admissions.

We contend that Prop 2 doesn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause under the Court’s “political structure” precedent, which outlaws subtle distortions of governmental processes in a way that places special burdens on the ability of minority groups to achieve beneficial legislation. The measures struck down in under that line of precedent differ marked from Prop 2 because, unlike in those older cases, minorities now have more protections against discrimination. Moreover, these protections apply across all levels of state government, not just discrete functions like housing and school busing.

Furthermore, Prop 2 creates no racial classifications so it cannot trigger “strict scrutiny” review. The simple fact that Prop 2 deals with race does not imply that it somehow disenfranchises racial minorities. If the Court finds that the “political structure” doctrine prohibits Prop 2, that precedent must be overruled as inconsistent with the text of the U.S. Constitution — though this is probably unnecessary given more modern precedent.

Interestingly, the California Civil Rights Initiative, known as Proposition 209, has been upheld repeatedly by the (notoriously left-wing) Ninth Circuit. Indeed, there is a wealth of evidence showing that minorities are succeeding under that system, which also prohibits the consideration of skin color in college admissions — and has led to higher attendance and graduation rates.

We urge the Supreme Court to side with Michigan’s voters and hold their ban on racial preferences (which the Court itself has admitted to be on shaky constitutional ground) to be constitutional.

The Court will hear the Schuette case in October or November.

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments Protect the Right to Counsel of Choice During Criminal Trials

Federal criminal defendants must fight a battle against the largest and most powerful organization in history, the U.S. government. At the very least, hopefully, they have a trusted attorney to fight with them.

That right of criminal defendants to choose their own lawyers is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and ensures the integrity of the adversarial justice process. Yet prosecutors are increasingly using a procedure called “asset forfeiture”—which freezes assets suspected of being tied to crime—to deny defendants the funds they need to retain the lawyer of their choice.

In January 2005, Kerri Kaley, then a sales representative with a New York-based medical device company, was informed that she was the target of a grand jury investigation in Miami. She was suspected of stealing prescription medical devices from hospitals and selling them on the black market. Kerri and her husband Brian (also under investigation) hired counsel to represent them in what turned out to be a two-year investigation. During that period, their lawyers interviewed witnesses, reviewed countless documents, researched legal issues, and conferred with the prosecutors.

To pay their attorneys, the Kaleys took a home equity line of credit on their house and bought a certificate of deposit. In 2007, the grand jury returned indictments, accompanied by asset forfeiture orders restraining the Kaleys’ money. Because they had been indicted, the money was said to be criminally “tainted.” These asset-restraining orders were obtained without the Kaleys’ lawyers present (called an ex parte hearing).

The Kaleys challenged the freezing of their assets, arguing that, under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, they were entitled to a pretrial adversarial (not ex parte) hearing where they could contest the charges against them. They argued that their constitutional claim is particularly strong because the seized money was necessary to retain their chosen lawyers.

The lower courts disagreed, however, holding that the only adversarial hearing the Kaleys were entitled to was their trial—the same trial for which where they can’t afford the long-serving counsel of their choice. Now at the Supreme Court, the Kaleys hope to vindicate the right to retain counsel of choice. Indeed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is an outlier from the overwhelming majority of federal appellate courts, which use a more demanding test for such claims.

Supporting the Kaleys, Cato has filed a brief arguing that the stringent test developed in a 1976 case called Mathews v. Eldridge should be used to determine the scope of the Kaleys’ hearing. Under Mathews, where the government seeks to restrain contested assets that would otherwise be used to retain counsel of choice, an adversarial hearing is required in which defendants can challenge the indictment used to support forfeiture.

Because the expansion of forfeiture has given rise to well-documented abuses, the risk of error is great and the individual interests at stake are highly compelling. Ex parte hearings are insufficient to reduce the probability of error and the countervailing government interests are insufficient to tip the balance. 

Ultimately, the right to counsel of choice preserves the integrity of the legal process by ensuring that the defendant, not the government, controls whom he trusts with his case.

The Supreme Court will hear Kaley v. United States this fall.

A Great Year for Cato at the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s term is over, with 75 cases having been argued and decided. It’s safe to say that the most significant ones were those decided this week, on the politically fraught subjects of affirmative action, the Voting Rights Act and gay marriage. I’m extremely proud that Cato was on the winning side of each of these issues. In fact, we were the only organization to file briefs supporting the challengers on each one (Fisher v. UT-AustinShelby County v. Holder, Windsor v. United States Perry v. Hollingsworth).

That says a lot. Not that the Supreme Court always takes its guidance from us – would that it were so! – but that we’re consistent in embracing the Constitution’s structural and rights-based protections for individual freedom and self-governance. It’s gratifying that the Supreme Court saw it our way in those “big” cases, even if Fisher was an extremely narrow decision and the others were all 5-4.

But that’s not all. After finishing my commentary on Windsor and Perry last night, I was curious to see how we did overall, beyond the high-profile cases. It turns out that we went 15-3 on the year. That is, looking purely at briefs we filed on the merits – you can see our record on briefs supporting cert petitions here – the Supreme Court ruled our way 15 times and against us three (and I can assure you that we don’t pick cases strategically to inflate our winning percentage. (I don’t count Perry in either column, by the way. While we ended up with a favorable result, Prop 8 struck down, the Court decided the case on standing grounds, incorrectly in my view).

Again, I’m not claiming that the Court was heavily influenced by briefs with Cato’s (or my) name on them – there’s just no way to know, and even briefs that are cited may be less influential than others – but many, many of these decisions track our thinking. That’s also gratifying, regardless of how the justices reached their conclusions.  

For the record, here’s the list of cases in which we filed this term (in order of argument):

Winning side (15): Kiobel v. Royal Dutch PetroleumArkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States, Fisher v. UT-Austin, Florida v. Jardines, Bailey v. United States, Comcast v. Behrend, The Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, Gabelli v. SEC, Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management DistrictPPL Corp. v. IRSShelby County v. Holder, Horne v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Windsor v. United StatesAID v. AOSISekhar v. United States

Losing side (3): City of Arlington v. FCCSalinas v. TexasUnited States v. Kebodeaux

My colleague Walter Olson has already compared our record to the greatest sports teams of all time, as well as what I consider to be the most dominate year by a baseball player, Sandy Koufax in 1963 (who went 25-5 and was the regular season and World Series MVP). I just wish that The Man With the Golden Arm could have had as long a career as Cato’s amicus brief program.

Supreme Court: Government Can’t Force Federal Contractors to Waive Their Rights

Despite its awkward name and somewhat technical details, AID v. AOSI provided the Supreme Court with an opportunity to make a very simple point: The federal government can’t force its contractors – whether they’re corporations (as in this case) or individuals – to promote policies that are unrelated to the program for which they receive federal funds. The Court correctly ruled that executing a program to combat HIV/AIDS is unrelated to advocating for or against the legalization of prostitution. One can imagine other instances: Treating drug abuse has little to do with one’s views on drug legalization. Running an adoption agency can be done whether one is pro-choice or pro-life. Missiles can be built regardless of whether the contractor favors a particular foreign policy stance.

As Cato argued in its amicus brief, such “policy requirements” significantly burden political speech, the constitutional protection of which lies at the very heart of the First Amendment. Had the government’s position been accepted, it would eviscerate the “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine, which the Supreme Court has long recognized to prevent the conditioning of generally available federal benefits on the waiver of fundamental rights. The Court has never given Congress carte blanche to give contractors Hobson’s Choices, whether relating to the freedom of speech or other constitutional rights. Today it thus strengthened the principle that Congress’s power to condition funding is limited to ensuring that its funds are used to properly implement the program that Congress wishes to fund, not to compel private organizations to adopt express “policies” that don’t relate to the use of those federal funds.

For more on AID v. AOSI, see my recent op-ed.

Cato Brief Gains National Acclaim

Remember Bond v. United States, that typical story of adultery, federalism, and chemical weapons?  Cato has actually filed four briefs in Bond, most recently last month, the last three making the point that the president can’t expand federal constitutional powers simply by signing a treaty.

Our arguments are based on a 2005 law review article by Georgetown law professor (and Cato senior fellow) Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, the primary author of these last three briefs. It’s certainly unusual for a law review article to play a pivotal role in a Supreme Court case, but, as those following Bond know, there’s little “usual” about this case. 

Maybe that’s why the national media is starting to pay attention to our attempt to get the Supreme Court to be faithful to this particular corner of the Constitution: last week, the National Law Journal declared our Bond filing its “brief of the week.”

For more on this case, and our arguments, watch the lunch panel we had on Friday, featuring Nick Rosenkranz and Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Bond in October.