Topic
Every decision we've filed under Civil Rights - Voting.
The Fifth Circuit granted the State of Texas's request to stay a district court injunction that had declared parts of Texas S.B. 1 unconstitutional. Relying on the Supreme Court's Purcell principle, the court held that altering election laws three weeks before an election creates unacceptable confusion and administrative burden.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction against California AB 587, holding that its Content Category Report provisions likely violate the First Amendment. The court ruled that the mandates compel non-commercial speech subject to strict scrutiny and are not narrowly tailored to serve the state's transparency goals.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction blocking California's requirement that online businesses opine on and mitigate risks of children viewing harmful content, ruling it likely violates the First Amendment by compelling speech. However, the court vacated the broader injunction covering other provisions because the record was insufficient to determine if those sections are facially unconstitutional or severable from the invalid mandate.
The D.C. Circuit held that U.S. district courts have jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to confirm arbitration awards against Spain, even as Spain argued EU law voided the underlying arbitration agreements. However, the court reversed the lower court's decision to enjoin Spain from seeking anti-suit relief in European courts, citing the sensitive nature of imposing such orders on a foreign sovereign.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a partial stay order issued by a motions panel, ruling that the district court's injunction barring enforcement of a specific Arizona statute shall remain in effect pending appeal.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction banning wolf trapping in Montana during grizzly bear denning season but vacated the order's geographic scope and prohibition on research trapping. The court held that while plaintiffs raised serious questions regarding unlawful grizzly bear take under the Endangered Species Act, the district court's injunction was overbroad in its application to areas outside the occupied grizzly range and to state research activities.