103126P.pdf   09/05/2012  MN Citizens Concerned for Life  v.  Lori Swanson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  10-3126
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with whom Wollman, Loken, Gruender,
   Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges, Join]
   Civil case - Campaign Financing. For the panel opinion in the matter,
   see Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 640 F.3d 304 (8th
   Cir. 2011). Because Minnesota has not advanced any relevant correlation
   between its identified interests and the ongoing reporting requirements of
   its campaign finance laws, Minnesota's requirement that all associations
   make independent expenditures through an independent expenditure
   fund, see Minn. Stat. Sec. 10A.12, subdiv. 1a, is most likely
   unconstitutional; accordingly the court reverses the district court's denial
   of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to the extent it requires
   ongoing reporting requirements from associations not otherwise
   qualifying as PACs under Minnesota law; district court did not abuse its
   discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction
   against Minnesota's ban on corporate political contributions, see Minn.
   Stat. Sec. 211B.15, subdiv. 2. Judge Melloy, with whom Murphy, Bye
   and Smith, Circuit Judges, Join, concurring and dissenting. Judge
   Colloton, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
  
103126P.pdf   05/16/2011  MN Citizens Concerned for Life  v.  Lori Swanson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  10-3126
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Bye,
   Circuit Judge]
   Civil case - Elections and Campaign Contributions. In an action seeking
   to invalidate Minnesota's ban on corporations making direct contributions
   to candidates and political parties and Minnesota's regulation of how
   corporations may make independent expenditures, the district court did
   not err in denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction as
   plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on the merits of their claims; 
   Minnesota's provisions of corporate independent expenditures are similar 
   in purpose and effect to the disclosure laws the Supreme Court upheld in 
   Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) and, 
   as a result, plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on the issue of whether 
   Minnesota impermissibly retained a ban on corporate independent expenditures;
   nor are plaintiffs likely to prevail on the claim that the laws are not 
   sufficiently tailored given the heightened level of constitutional scrutiny 
   or the claim that the state's ban on direct corporate contributions is 
   unconstitutional. Chief Judge Riley, concurring in part and dissenting in 
   part.