National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission

Issues

Do statutes that limit the amount a political party can donate in coordination with a political candidate violate the First Amendment?

This case asks the Court to determine whether 52 U.S.C. § 30116 of the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) violates the First Amendment rights of political parties wishing to coordinate donations for their preferred candidates’ political campaigns. FECA was established to set a cap on a political party’s coordinated expenditures to prevent circumvention of contribution limits. Petitioners, National Republican Senatorial Committee (“NRSC”), National Republican Congressional Committee (“NRCC”), former Senator J.D. Vance, and former Representative Stephen Chabot (collectively “NRSC”), argue that the limits on coordinated party expenditures violate the First Amendment because they infringe their speech and political association rights. NRSC further argues that Colorado II, a case in which the Supreme Court previously upheld coordinated party expenditure limits, should not control this case. The Court-appointed attorney Roman Martinez, invited to support the judgment below, argues that the coordinated party expenditure limits are necessary to achieve the government interest in preventing quid-pro-quo corruption between donors and candidates, and that Colorado II must control this case’s outcome. Martinez further highlights several justiciability concerns. The outcome of this case could impact political corruption deterrence and Congress’ ability to regulate campaign finance.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37.

Congress enacted the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) in 1972 to regulate political campaign spending. National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (“NRSC v. FEC”) at 4. The FECA imposes a variety of limits on individual contributions to political parties and on political parties’ campaign spending.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Ley 26743 Identidad de Genero

Law 26743 codifies the definition of gender identity and ensures its protections. Article 2 defines gender identity as an internal and individual experience which may or may not correspond to an individual's sex assigned at birth. Article 1 recognizes the right for a person to be recognized and freely develop in accordance with their gender identity, including government identification.

Ley 27636 Ley de Promoción del Acceso al Empleo Formal para Personas Travestis, Transexuales y Transgénero Diana Sacayán – Lohana Berkins (2021)

Law 27636 is aimed at achieving inclusion and equality of trans people in an employment context. Article 7 of the law affirms the right for trans people to work, and the right to not be discriminated against for the duration of their employment. Article 5 requires that federal government entities have at least 1% of their workforce be trans people.

Ley 27580 Convenio sobre la Eliminación de la Violencia y el Acoso en el Mundo del Trabajo, Workplace Harassment

Law 27580 ratified the International Labour Organization’s Convention 190 on violence and harassment in the labor context. Convention 190 is an international treaty adopted by the International Labour Organization in 2019 to address violence and harassment in the workplace. It defines these terms broadly, including gender-based violence and harassment, and provides a framework for countries to prevent and respond to such behaviors.

Ley 11317 Trabajo de las Mujeres y Niños, Labor Law

Law 11317 originally sought to protect women in the workforce and end child labor. While most of the law has been repealed and replaced with modern labor standards, a prohibition on women working certain jobs considered to be dangerous or unhealthy, remains. Said prohibition was explicitly brought forward in Article 192 of Law 20744, which itself had repealed and replaced many other provisions of Law 11317.

Ley 26844 Régimen Especial de Contrato de Trabajo para el Personal de Casas Particulares, on Domestic Workers

Law 26844 expands the protections of Law 20744 (which defines the fundamental rules of the employer–employee relationship in Argentine law) to domestic workers. By explicitly applying the regime of Law 20744 where the law is silent, domestic workers are protected from the forms of discrimination to which Law 20744 applies.

Ley 20744 Ley de Contrato de Trabajo on Employment Contracts

Law 20744, the Employment Contract Law, defines the fundamental rules of the employer–employee relationship, including its validity and the rights and obligations of the parties, for any employment contract executed within Argentine territory. The law includes sex as a covered basis for discrimination in the treatment of employees (Article 18) and in the type of employment contracts or collective bargaining agreements available and attached salaries (Article 187).

Código Civil y Comercial Arts. 699-704 (2014) on Child Abuse

Articles 699 through 704 of the Civil and Commercial Code define the circumstances that lead to the termination, removal, suspension, or reinstatement of parental responsibility. Parental responsibility naturally terminates at the death of the parent or child, when the child turns 18 or is emancipated, or at the adoption of the child by a third party without prejudice (Article 699).

Trump v. Slaughter

Issues

Does the separation of powers permit statutory removal protections for heads of multimember administrative agencies? If so, do federal courts have the authority to reinstate wrongfully discharged members of such agencies?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether “for-cause” removal protections over members of multimember administrative agencies, like the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), violate the separation of powers and, even if they do, whether federal courts have the power to reinstate wrongfully removed officers. President Donald J. Trump claims that the Constitution vests the entire executive power in the president and, therefore, the president must be able to control officers who exercise power on his behalf through the threat of removal. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter argues that removal protections benefit the separation of powers and enable administrative agencies to function as Congress and the founders intended. This case implicates the amount of power that a president may constitutionally exert on agencies and the stability of such agencies, including, potentially, the Federal Reserve, going forward.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States should be overruled. 

(2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.

Congress established the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) through the FTC Act of 1914. Slaughter v.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to