Citizens United et al v. Schneiderman
| Citizens United and Citizens United Foundation |
| Eric Schneiderman |
| 1:2014cv03703 |
| May 22, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Sidney H. Stein |
| Constitutionality of State Statutes |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
69
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 60 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed by Eric Schneiderman. Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is granted in its entirety. The complaint states not a single plausible claim upon which relief can be granted. Court I of the First Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The due process claim embedded in Count III is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the remainder of Count III is dismissed wit hout prejudice. Counts II and IV-the state law and federal preemption claims-are dismissed with prejudice. If plaintiffs chose to do so, they may seek leave to file a Second Amended Complaint fifteen days after the date of this Opinion & Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Sidney H. Stein on 8/29/2016) (ama)
|
|
Filing
38
OPINION & ORDER re: 7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Citizens United Foundation, Citizens United. Based on the evidence that the parties have presented to the Court at this stage in the litigation, the Court holds tha t plaintiffs are not entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Attorney General from obtaining their Schedules B. Most importantly, plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of any of their claims. Plaintiffs&# 039; First Amendment unconstitutional burden claim is not likely to succeed because, on this record, the Attorney General has shown that the Schedule B policy substantially relates to the important governmental interests of enforcing charitable solic itation laws and overseeing charitable organizations for the protection of the public. These interests justify the minimal burdens that the Schedule B policy places on charities' speech and association rights. Moreover, because the Attorney Gene ral does not possess unbridled discretion to impose conditions on the ability of charities to speak, plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on their First Amendment prior restraint claim. Nor are plaintiffs likely to prevail on the remainder of their c laims. Their due process and SAPA claims lack merit because the evidence in the record shows that plaintiffs had prior notice of the Attorney General's interpretation of section 91.5, which was promulgated in accordance with SAPA's notice-a nd-comment procedures. And because there is insufficient evidence that Congress intended to prevent state attorneys general from obtaining Schedule B directly from charities, plaintiffs are not likely to win their preemption challenge. Finally, plain tiffs have not shown that they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, or that a preliminary injunction serves the public interest. Because Citizens United and Citizens Unit ed Foundation have not made a "clear showing" that they are entitled to the "extraordinary remedy" of a preliminary injunction, Winter, 555 U.S. at 22, their motion is denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Sidney H. Stein on 7/27/2015) (ama)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
