Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, 555 U.S. 5 (2008)
Primary Holding
The issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enforce Section 303 of the Help America Vote Act by a private litigant is not justified, as the respondents are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question of whether Congress has authorized such enforcement.
In the case of Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, the Supreme Court decided that a private group could not force the state to update its voter registration database through a temporary order. This matters because it sets limits on who can enforce voting laws, ensuring that only authorized officials can take such actions. This case is relevant if you're concerned about how voter registration is managed in your state, as it clarifies that individuals or groups can't directly intervene in these processes without proper authority.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, the underlying dispute arose from a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on October 9, 2008. This order directed Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio Secretary of State, to update the Statewide Voter Registration Database (SWVRD) to comply with Section 303 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). The Ohio Republican Party and other respondents had challenged the state's compliance with HAVA, prompting the court's intervention to ensure that the voter registration system met federal standards. The procedural history of the case involves the Secretary of State's motion to vacate the TRO, which was denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Following this denial, Brunner sought a stay of the TRO from Justice Stevens, who serves as the Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit. The matter was subsequently referred to the Supreme Court, where the Secretary contended that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the TRO and that the court's ruling on the merits was incorrect. The relevant background context includes the implications of HAVA, which mandates that states maintain accurate voter registration systems. The case highlights the tension between state election officials and federal mandates, as well as the role of the judiciary in enforcing compliance with federal election laws. The Supreme Court ultimately granted the application for a stay and vacated the TRO, indicating that the respondents were not sufficiently likely to prevail on the jurisdictional question regarding the enforcement of HAVA by private litigants.
Whether the District Court had jurisdiction to enter a temporary restraining order enforcing Section 303 of the Help America Vote Act in an action brought by a private litigant.
The application for a stay is granted and the temporary restraining order (TRO) is vacated.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- Unknown
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)
Consumer LostThe Supreme Court vacated the order of the Court of Appeals, emphasizing that the election procedures implemented under Proposition 200, which required proof of citizenship and identification for voting, were precleared under the Voting Rights Act and did not necessarily disenfranchise qualified voters.
Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007)
Consumer LostFederal courts must ensure they have jurisdiction, including standing, before addressing the merits of a case, which requires a plaintiff to demonstrate injury in fact, causation, and redressability.
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 546 U.S. 410 (2006)
Consumer WonThe Supreme Court held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's prohibition on electioneering communications can be subject to as-applied constitutional challenges, allowing organizations like Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. to argue that specific communications should not be classified as electioneering based on their content and context.
Riley v. Kennedy, 553 U.S. 406 (2008)
Consumer LostA state does not need to obtain fresh preclearance under §5 of the Voting Rights Act to reinstate an election practice that was in effect prior to the invalidation of a subsequently enacted law, as the invalidated law is considered to have never gained "force or effect.