From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party

Supreme Court of the United States
Oct 17, 2008
555 U.S. 5 (2008)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding private litigants were "not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce § 303 [of HAVA] in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO"

Summary of this case from Georgia Voter Alliance v. Fulton County
See 10 Summaries

Opinion

No. 08A332.

10-17-2008

Jennifer BRUNNER, Ohio Secretary of State, v. OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY et al.

PER CURIAM.

Opinion On October 9, 2008, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) directing Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio Secretary of State (Secretary), to update Ohio's Statewide Voter Registration Database to comply with § 303 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), 116 Stat. 1708, 42 U.S.C. § 15483(a)(5)(B)(i). (2000 ed., Supp. V). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the Secretary's motion to vacate the TRO. The Secretary has filed an application to stay the TRO with Justice STEVENS as Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit, and he has referred the matter to the Court. The Secretary argues both that the District Court had no jurisdiction to enter the TRO and that its ruling on the merits was erroneous. We express no opinion on the question whether HAVA is being properly implemented. Respondents, however, are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce § 303 in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO. See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 283, 122 S.Ct. 2268, 153 L.Ed.2d 309 (2002) ; Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001). We therefore grant the application for a stay and vacate the TRO.

Section 15483(a)(5)(B)(i) states, in relevant part:

“The chief State election official and the official responsible for the State motor vehicle authority of a State shall enter into an agreement to match information in the database of the statewide voter registration system with information in the database of the motor vehicle authority to the extent required to enable each such official to verify the accuracy of the information provided on applications for voter registration.”




It is so ordered .

Summaries of

Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party

Supreme Court of the United States
Oct 17, 2008
555 U.S. 5 (2008)

holding private litigants were "not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce § 303 [of HAVA] in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO"

Summary of this case from Georgia Voter Alliance v. Fulton County

vacating a temporary restraining order because “[r]espondents ... are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce § 303 in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO”

Summary of this case from Crowley v. Nevada

vacating temporary restraining order because there is likely no private right of action under HAVA based on a private litigant's claim of vote dilution

Summary of this case from Alliance v. City of Minneapolis

disagreeing with this Court’s analysis on the likelihood of success on the merits issue

Summary of this case from A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Husted

In Brunner, the Court vacated a temporary restraining order directing Ohio's Secretary of State to update the state's voter registration database, having concluded that the plaintiffs were not sufficiently likely to prove that HAVA section 303 gave them a private right of action.

Summary of this case from Colón-Marrero v. Vélez

In Sandoval and Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, 555 U.S. 5, 129 S.Ct. 5, 172 L.Ed.2d 4 (2008), the plaintiffs asked the Court to enjoin a state official from violating a federal statute.

Summary of this case from Mich. Corr. Org. v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.

suggesting no private cause of action to enforce the Help America Vote Act

Summary of this case from Detgen v. Janek

In Brunner, the Court issued a one-paragraph emergency opinion summarily vacating a temporary restraining order that had directed the Ohio Secretary of State to update Ohio's voter database to comply with section 303 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 a few weeks before the national election.

Summary of this case from Indiana Protection & Advocacy Services v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration

In Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, 555 U.S. 5 (2008) (per curiam), the Supreme Court summarily vacated a TRO because the parties who obtained it were "not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce § 303 [of HAVA] in an action brought by a private litigant."

Summary of this case from Alliance v. Black Hawk Cnty.

In Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party (2008) 555 U.S. __ [172 L.Ed.2d 4], the trial court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring the Ohio Secretary of State to update the state's voter registration database to comply with HAVA.

Summary of this case from Pappas v. Farr
Case details for

Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party

Case Details

Full title:Jennifer BRUNNER, Ohio Secretary of State, v. OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY et al.

Court:Supreme Court of the United States

Date published: Oct 17, 2008

Citations

555 U.S. 5 (2008)
129 S. Ct. 5
172 L. Ed. 2d 4
21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 545

Citing Cases

Indiana Protection & Advocacy Services v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration

Id. Our dissenting colleague contends that Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 5, 172…

Colón-Marrero v. Vélez

The statutory proscription—“no registrant may be removed”—directly and explicitly protects individual voters.…

23 Citing Cases