At page 1306 Applying injunctions only in critical and exigent circumstances12 citing casesnoting the Act should generally “only be used ‘sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent of circumstances.’
- Libby v. Fecteau, No. 24A1051 (U.S. May 20, 2025).We have long recognized that this injunctive relief is appropriate only when “critical and exigent circumstances” exist necessitating intervention “in aid of [our] jurisdictio[n],” and the applicants’ entitlement to relief is “indisputably…
- Doe v. Tonti Mgmt. Co, L.L.C., No. 2:20-cv-02466 (E.D. La. Oct. 28, 2022).Right to Life, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 542 U.S. 1305, 1306 (2004)).
- The Courtland Co., Inc. v. Union Carbide Corp. (Courtland II), No. 2:19-cv-00894 (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 23, 2021).(noting the Act should generally “only be used ‘sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent of circumstances.’)
- Courtland Co., Inc. v. Union Carbide Corp. (Courtland III), No. 2:21-cv-00101 (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 23, 2021).(noting the Act should generally “only be used ‘sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent of circumstances.’)
- Courtland Co., Inc. v. Union Carbide Corp. (Courtland IV), No. 2:21-cv-00487 (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 23, 2021).(noting the Act should generally “only be used ‘sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent of circumstances.’)
- Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 4.72 Acres of Land, Owned by Aimee Chase Hamm, individually & as of the Est. of Fred W. Vest, & Will Sheridan Vest, No. 7:18-cv-00647 (W.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2021).Election Comm’n, 542 U.S. 1305, 1306 (2004) (Rehnquist, C.J., in chambers).
- Democracy North Carolina v. North Carolina State Bd. of Elections, No. 1:20-cv-00457 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 14, 2020).However, as the All Writs Act is to be used “sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances,” Wis. Right to Life, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 542 U.S. 1305, 1306 (2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted),…
- G.A.Resort Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. ILG, Inc, No. 1:19-cv-01870 (D. Colo. Aug. 3, 2020). Election Comm’n, 542 U.S. 1305, 1306 (quotation omitted).
- Micks-Harm v. Nichols, No. 2:18-cv-12634 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 30, 2019).Election Comm’n, 542 U.S. 1305, 1306 (2004).
- M.C. Moore v. Tangipahoa Par. Sch. Boar, 507 F. App'x 389 (5th Cir. 2013).unpublishedElection Comm’n, 542 U.S. 1305, 1306 (2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Show 2 more citing cases
- Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 568 U.S. 1401 (2012).“the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear”
- In re: Life Investors Ins. v., No. 09-5598 (6th Cir. Dec. 17, 2009).publishedElection Comm’n, 542 U.S. 1305, 1306 (2004) (Rehnquist, C.J., in chambers).
At page 1305 cited at this page2 citing cases
- Bibb v. The U.S. Dist. Court Judge Edmund J. Sargus's Court, No. 2:24-cv-01808 (S.D. Ohio May 31, 2024).Election Comm'n, 542 U.S. 1305, 1305-06 (2004) (quoting Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U.S. 1312, 1313 (1986)).
- Cavel Int'l Inc v. Matekaitis, Ron, No. 07-2658 (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2007).publishedWisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 542 U.S. 1305, 1305-06 (2004).
v.
Federal Election Commission
WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC.
v.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
No. 04A194.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided September 14, 2004.
ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION
Applicant's request for an injunction pending appeal barring the enforcement of §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) is denied. Applicant contends that §203—which bans corporations from using general treasury funds to finance certain electioneering communications—violates the First Amendment as applied to its political advertisements. An injunction pending appeal would be an extraordinary remedy, particularly when this Court recently held BCRA facially constitutional, McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93, 189-210, and when a three-judge District Court unanimously rejected applicant's request for a preliminary injunction. The All Writs Act, the only source of this Court's authority to issue the instant injunction, is to be used "`sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances.'" Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U. S. 1312, 1313, (SCALIA, J., in chambers). Applicant has not established that this extraordinary remedy is appropriate here.
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, Circuit Justice.
Applicant Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., has requested I grant an injunction pending appeal barring the enforcement of § 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), 116 Stat. 91, 2 U.S.C. § 441b (2000 ed. and Supp. II), which bars corporations from using general treasury funds to finance electioneering communications as defined in BCRA §201. Applicant contends that §203 violates the First Amendment as applied to its political advertisements. A three-judge District Court, convened pursuant to BCRA §403(a)(1), denied applicant's motion for a preliminary injunction and denied applicant's motion for an injunction pending appeal. I herewith deny the application for an injunction pending appeal.
An injunction pending appeal barring the enforcement of an Act of Congress would be an extraordinary remedy, particularly when this Court recently held BCRA facially constitutional, McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93, 189-210 (2003), and when a unanimous three-judge District Court rejected applicant's request for a preliminary injunction. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U. S. 1301, 1302-1303 (1993) (REHNQUIST, C. J., in chambers). The All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651(a), is the only source of this Court's authority to issue such an injunction. That authority is to be used "`"sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances."'" Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U.S. 1312, 1313 (1986) (SCALIA, J., in chambers) (quoting Fishman v. Schaffer, 429 U. S. 1325, 1326 (1976) (Marshall, J., in chambers)). It is only appropriately exercised where (1) "necessary or appropriate in aid of [our] jurisdictio[n]," 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and (2) the legal rights at issue are "indisputably clear," Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U. S. 1301, 1303 (2001) (REHNQUIST, C. J., in chambers). Applicant has failed to establish that this extraordinary remedy is appropriate. Therefore, I decline to issue an injunction pending appeal in this case.