Jennifer Brunner, Ohio Secretary of State v. Ohio Republican Party et al.

Supreme Court of the United States
555 U. S. ____ (2008) (2008)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Private litigants are generally not authorized by Congress to bring lawsuits to enforce Section 303 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), as the statute does not explicitly provide for a private right of action.

Facts:

The federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires state election officials to enter into an agreement with the state motor vehicle authority to match information between the voter registration database and the motor vehicle database.
The purpose of this data matching is to verify the accuracy of information provided on voter registration applications.
Jennifer Brunner served as the Ohio Secretary of State, the state's chief election official responsible for implementing HAVA.
A dispute arose concerning whether Brunner was properly matching information and updating Ohio's Statewide Voter Registration Database in compliance with HAVA's requirements.

Procedural Posture:

The Ohio Republican Party sued Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio Secretary of State, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
On October 9, 2008, the District Court (trial court) entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) directing Secretary Brunner to update the state's voter database.
Secretary Brunner filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to vacate the TRO.
The Sixth Circuit (intermediate appellate court) denied Brunner's motion.
Brunner then filed an application with Justice Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court, in his capacity as Circuit Justice, to stay the TRO.
Justice Stevens referred the matter to the full Supreme Court for consideration.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Section 303 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) authorize a private litigant to sue a state official to compel compliance with its voter database matching requirements?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No. Private litigants are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question of whether Congress has authorized a private right of action to enforce Section 303 of HAVA. The Court's reasoning rests on the principle that a private right to sue to enforce a federal law must be explicitly created by Congress. Citing the precedents of Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe and Alexander v. Sandoval, the Court concluded that the party suing Brunner was unlikely to demonstrate that Congress intended to create a private remedy within HAVA. Therefore, the lower court was not justified in issuing an order based on a lawsuit brought by a private litigant.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the Supreme Court's restrictive approach to implied private rights of action. It signals that courts should not infer a private right to sue to enforce a federal statute unless Congress has provided for one with clear and unambiguous language. By vacating the temporary restraining order on these grounds, the Court effectively limited the ability of private parties, such as political organizations, to use litigation to enforce the administrative provisions of HAVA. This places the primary responsibility for enforcement on government agencies rather than on private citizens, potentially narrowing the avenues for challenging state election administration procedures under this act.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Jennifer Brunner, Ohio Secretary of State v. Ohio Republican Party et al. (2008)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"