UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ____________________________________ ) ) BRENT TREBOR GORDON, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v.
) Civil Case No. 14-3146 ) CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS ) DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE and ANNISE PARKER, in her official ) RELIEF SOUGHT capacity as Mayor of the City of ) Houston, Tex. ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Case 4:14-cv-03146 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/14 Page 1 of 33
Gordon/Prelim. Inj. Memorandum
ii.
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ iii. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 FACTUAL AND STATUTORY BACKGROUND .......................................................................1 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................4 I. Preliminary Injunction Standard .............................................................................................4 II. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits ......................................................................6 A. Hous
ton’s fundraising blackout period burdens “the most fundamental”
First Amendment rights and is subject to rigorous review .........................................................6 B. The fundraising blackout is facially unconstitutional because it is not supported by a legitimate government interest ...........................................................................................9 a.
Fighting “quid pro quo” corruption is the only cognizable government interest in
this area ........................................................................................................................9 b. Under
McCutcheon
and
Catholic Leadership
, as a matter of law, aggregate limits do not address corruption ..........................................................................................10 i.
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
.....................................................10 ii.
Catholic Leadership Coalition of Texas v. Reisman
...........................................12 c.
Houston’s fundraising blackout is an aggregate limit and invalid as a matter
of law .........................................................................................................................13 d. The true purpose behind the fundraising blackout appears to be something other than addressing corruption ........................................................................................17 C. The fundraising blackout is facially unconstitutional because it is not appropriately tailored .............................................................................................................................18 a. The parameters Houston has chosen for its blackout period are unmoored from any apparent indicia of any increased corruption threat ..................................................18 b. More narrowly-tailored base limits provide a less restrictive alternative .................20 c. The blackout period is underinclusive .......................................................................21
Case 4:14-cv-03146 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/14 Page 2 of 33
Gordon/Prelim. Inj. Memorandum
iii.
d. The blackout period is overinclusive ........................................................................22 e. Reporting requirements are a less intrusive alternative to an outright ban ...............23 III. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Without an Injunction ..........................................24 IV. Balancing of Harms ............................................................................................................25 V. Effect on the Public Interest ................................................................................................25 VI. The Court Should Waive the Bond Requirement of FRCP 65(c) ......................................25 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................26
Case 4:14-cv-03146 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 11/04/14 Page 3 of 33
|