×
This just in --
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Rudolph Randa's order shutting down the John Doe investigation into political allies of Gov. Scott Walker—the Wisconsin Club for Growth and its director, Eric O'Keefe. The three judges—who famously overturned Randa's ruling in the Georgia Thompson case—want the case to be heard in state court.
Randa's ruling in this case was always a bizarre one. Glad that the three judges agreed.
UPDATE
Here are the details.
The threejudges—Diane Wood, Frank Easterbrook and William Bauer—once again slapped backU.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa.
They wrote that thecase was already being heard in state court, where it had been effectively shutdown by John Doe Judge Gregory Peterson, who quashed subpoenas issued bySpecial Prosecutor Francis Schmitz. Peterson’s ruling is being appealed, butthe case remains on hold in the meantime.
The judges wroteabout O’Keefe’s claim that the investigation would cause irreparable harmunless it was shut down in federal court. They wrote:
They go on to say ofRanda’s injunction “we are confident that it is imprudent.”
They then wade a bitinto whether the Constitution allows the government to regulate campaignfinance and disclosure. Let’s just say that they don’t agree withRanda-O’Keefe-Wisconsin Club for Growth’s belief that the First Amendmentprohibits any sort of campaign finance regulations.
The judges wrote:
And:
They sent the caseback to state court, where it’s still on hold.
In other words,Randa, take a large step back.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Rudolph Randa's order shutting down the John Doe investigation into political allies of Gov. Scott Walker—the Wisconsin Club for Growth and its director, Eric O'Keefe. The three judges—who famously overturned Randa's ruling in the Georgia Thompson case—want the case to be heard in state court.
Randa's ruling in this case was always a bizarre one. Glad that the three judges agreed.
UPDATE
Here are the details.
The threejudges—Diane Wood, Frank Easterbrook and William Bauer—once again slapped backU.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa.
They wrote that thecase was already being heard in state court, where it had been effectively shutdown by John Doe Judge Gregory Peterson, who quashed subpoenas issued bySpecial Prosecutor Francis Schmitz. Peterson’s ruling is being appealed, butthe case remains on hold in the meantime.
The judges wroteabout O’Keefe’s claim that the investigation would cause irreparable harmunless it was shut down in federal court. They wrote:
Was federal court intervention necessary in this case? Again, they disagree with Randa:And it is hard to seethat kind of injury, because plaintiffs obtained effective relief from JudgePeterson before the federal judge acted—indeed, before filing this suit. [...]The state case might be over today had the district judge allowed it to takeits course.
Courts must resolvecases on statutory rather than constitutional grounds. Yet the district court[Randa] waded into a vexed field of constitutional law needlessly. JudgePeterson had already concluded that the investigation should end as a matter ofstate law, because prosecutor Schmitz lacks evidence that state law has been violated.The result is an injunction [by Randa] unnecessary at best, advisory at worst.
They go on to say ofRanda’s injunction “we are confident that it is imprudent.”
They then wade a bitinto whether the Constitution allows the government to regulate campaignfinance and disclosure. Let’s just say that they don’t agree withRanda-O’Keefe-Wisconsin Club for Growth’s belief that the First Amendmentprohibits any sort of campaign finance regulations.
The judges wrote:
Until the districtcourt’s [Randa’s] opinion in this case, neither a state nor a federal court hadheld that Wisconsin’s (or any other state’s) regulation of coordinatedfund-raising and issue advocacy violates the First Amendment.
And:
And:The Supreme Court hasyet to determine what “coordination” means.
And Randa’sinjunction halting the investigation was “an abuse of discretion.”No opinion issued bythe Supreme Court, or by any court of appeals, establishes (“clearly” orotherwise) that the First Amendment forbids regulation of coordination betweencampaign committees and issue-advocacy groups—let alone that the FirstAmendment forbids even an inquiryinto that topic. The district court broke new ground.
They sent the caseback to state court, where it’s still on hold.
In other words,Randa, take a large step back.
