Month: March 2020

On Nov. 25, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a summary opinion in Thompson v. Hebdon, a case involving campaign-finance law. Specifically at issue was whether Alaska’s political contribution limits are consistent with this Court’s First Amendment precedents.
Currently, Alaska’s law imposes (among other things) a $500 annual limit on individual contributions to a political candidate and to any group other than a political party.
The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the limits, ruling that they were drawn narrowly to prevent quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of such corruption.
The Supreme Court, in an per curiam opinion, granted the petition of cert, vacated the decision below and remanded the case back for the 9th Circuit to revisit. Justice Ginsburg filed a statement.
To discuss the case, we have Derek Muller, Professor of Law at Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Jan. 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Kelly v. United States, a case asking whether a public official “defraud[s]” the government of its property by advancing a “public policy reason” for an official decision that is not that official’s subjective “real reason” for making the decision.
In 2013, in a New Jersey scandal known as “Bridgegate,” petitioners William E. Baroni, Jr. and Bridget Anne Kelly manufactured a grid-lock traffic jam in Fort Lee, New Jersey after the mayor refused to endorse then-Governor Chris Christie’s re-election campaign. Under the guise of a “traffic study” the two limited Fort Lee motorists’ access to the George Washington Bridge--the busiest bridge in the world--over the period of four days coinciding with the local school district’s first week of school.
Baroni and Kelly were indicted in 2015 for conspiracy to obtain by fraud, knowingly convert, or intentionally misapply property of an organization receiving federal benefits, the underlying offense itself (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A)), conspiracy to commit wire fraud, actual wire fraud, and conspiracy against civil rights. A jury convicted both defendants on all counts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and vacated the civil rights convictions, but affirmed all other judgments of conviction. The Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari, however, to consider whether a public official can “defraud” the government of its property by advancing a public policy reason for an official decision that was not actually the public official’s subjective reason for making the decision.
To discuss the case, we have Erin Sheley, associate professor of law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.