Category Archives: Public Interest Law

Today, Enquirer reporter Amber Hunt does an excellent job of explaining the somewhat complex substance and procedural posture of the arguments today before Federal District Court Judge Timothy Black in Susan B. Anthony List. v. Ohio Elections Commission in this article.

This afternoon, a true constitutional showdown is occurring at 2:30 PM before Judge Timothy Black.  If this sort of thing interests you, it will make excellent theater.  On one side is preeminent Constitutional barrister and frequent Supreme Court advocate, Michael A. Carvin of Jones Day in D.C.  On the other side is Eric Murphy, Solicitor of the State of Ohio.  Finally, representing the other Plaintiff, COAST, is Finney Law Firm attorney and founder Chris Finney.

After four solid years of litigating this issue, we are now hopeful that Judge Black will enjoin the enforcement of the unconstitutional statute, and end the Ohio Election Commission’s harassment of those who choose to engage in political speech.

Come on down for a listen if you are so inclined.  If not, we will report on the results.

The timing could not have been better.  On the eve of our Motions for Summary Judgment hearing before Federal District Court Judge Timothy Black on the SBA List case, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals today released its decision on remarkably parallel litigation challenging a similar statute in Minnesota.

It addresses and dispenses with every single defense raised by the Ohio Elections Commission in the Ohio case, and a few more.

It is exceedingly well-reasoned and well-written.  This Court of Appeals clearly understands the First Amendment.

Read it here.

 

One would expect that after a 9-0 victory at the US Supreme Court, a case finally would be “over,” but that’s not always the case.

In SBA List and COAST v. Ohio Elections Commission such is the posture of the litigation.  The Supreme Court ruling merely ended the procedural skirmish over the question of whether the Plaintiffs has standing to even be in court to challenge the law that criminalizes political speech in Ohio.  After four years working through the Courts, that question finally was answered in the affirmative.

Now we are back before the Federal District Court judge, Timothy Black on the merits of the case — is Ohio’s “False Claims” statute constitutional.  Our client, COAST, along with the Susan B. Anthony List, maintains that it is not.

That topic quickly has become the subject of cross motions for summary judgment.  The matter has been fully briefed and is now the subject of oral argument before Judge Black this Thursday, September 4th at 2:30 PM on both those MSJ motions, and alternately Plaintiff’s motion for Preliminary Injunction.

It is our hope and expectation that Judge Black will rule on one or both of those motions quickly so that all Ohio candidates and the public can proceed in the Fall elections knowing if they are subject to Ohio’s statute regulating electoral conduct.

We will keep you advised as to progress.

In March of this year, the new NAACP President Ishton Morton was charged with criminal assault over an incident at the NAACP headquarters in Bond Hill that occurred in January.

The trial on those charges will proceed Tuesday before Judge Heather Russell at 10:30 AM.

It is our expectation to show not only that the charges are entirely unfounded, but that the police and prosecutor’s office failed to properly investigate the “crime” or to pursue the charges with any degree of responsibility.

We are proud to act as counsel to President Morton in these proceedings.

Just shy of four years since this legal battle began, lawyers from Cincinnati, Columbus and Washington, D.C. will descend upon the courtroom of Judge Timothy Black to argue cross motions for summary judgment in SBA List and COAST v. Ohio Elections Commission.  The Finney Law Firm represents COAST in this action.

Until June of this year, the parties were wrestling solely over the issue of whether the plaintiffs even had standing to sue.  That issue, and a companion case from 2011 involving the same client group, were resolved in June of this year by the US Supreme Court in two 9-0 decisions in our clients’ favor.  You may read about those victories here.

Those decisions thus returned the cases back to the District Court for either trial or summary adjudication.  The first of those to advance is before Judge Timothy Black, and this Thursday, he holds a hearing on cross-motions for summary judgment filed by both Plaintiffs and the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs’ motions were filed in anticipation that the unconstitutional law — making criminal claimed false political statements and empowering an Ohio “Ministry of Truth” (consisting of non-judges and non-attorneys) to decide truth and falsity — will be enjoined before this fall’s election

Thus, we expect — or are at least hopeful for — quick resolution of the motions by Judge Black.

A citizens group in Maple Heights, Ohio organized this year to place on the ballot a Charter Amendment to ban red light and speeding cameras in their City.  In doing so, they sought the assistance of the Finney Law Firm to draft their petition and in early August submitted the petitions with the requisite number of signatures to the City Council.  The right to place the issue on the ballot is set forth in the Ohio Constitution.

The City Law Director responded to that petition and a subsequent taxpayer demand letter from the petitioners by refusing to either place the issue on the ballot, or even submit the question to a vote of the Council.  Indeed, his response letter was dripping with condescension aimed towards these citizens simply exercising their rights under the Ohio Constitution.

As a result, our firm was retained and this past week we filed suit, requesting a writ of mandamus, with the Ohio Supreme Court.  Copies of the Complaint and Memorandum in Support are linked here and here.

We will keep our readers advised as to the outcome of that litigation.

 

 

Our firm represents a group of citizens from the City of Maple Heights, Ohio who petitioned their City Council pursuant to the Ohio Constitution to place a Charter Amendment on the ballot this fall essentially banning Red Light Cameras and Speeding Cameras.

These folks simply exercised a specific procedure in the Ohio Constitution allowing for a public vote on the measure, and inclusion (if successful) in the governing document of the City.  Essentially, they wanted to take the decision on red light and speeding cameras away from their elected officials.

The City Law Director made it clear when the Finney Law Firm called a few weeks ago to arrange an orderly turn-in of the petitions that he had no intention of placing the issue before the voters.

Today, we received correspondence affirming that position.  Read it here.

We will be suing next week.  Please follow along.  The drama is exciting.