Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party
129 S. Ct. 5
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2008-10-17
- Topic
- general
holding that TRO applicant was “not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce [HAVA] in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO” | holding that “HAVA creates no private cause of action’’ | holding that “HAVA creates no private cause of action” | vacating temporary restraining order because there is likely no private right of action under HAVA based on a private litigant’s claim of vote dilution | suggesting no private cause of action to enforce the Help America Vote Act | petitioners were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their implied rights claim under 52 U.S.C. § 21083(a)(1)(A) | “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by 7 mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” | petitioners were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their implied rights claim under 52 U.S.C. § 21083(a)(1)(A)
Citator
- Cited by
- 41 opinions
On October 9, 2008, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) directing Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio Secretary of State (Secretary), to update Ohio’s Statewide Voter Registration Database to comply with §303 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), 116 Stat. 1708,42 U. S. C. § 15483(a)(5)(B)(i) (2000 ed., Supp. V). * The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the Secretary’s motion to vacate the TRO. The Secretary has filed an application to stay the TRO with Justice Stevens as Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit, and he has referred the matter *6 to the Court. The Secretary argues both that the District Court had no jurisdiction to enter the TRO and that its ruling on the merits was erroneous. We express no opinion on the question whether HAVA is being properly implemented. Respondents, however, are not sufficiently likely to prevail on the question whether Congress has authorized the District Court to enforce § 303 in an action brought by a private litigant to justify the issuance of a TRO. See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U. S. 273, 283 (2002); Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275, 286 (2001). We therefore grant the application for a stay and vacate the TRO.
It is so ordered.
Section 15483(a)(5)(B)(i) states, in relevant part:
“The chief State election official and the official responsible for the State motor vehicle authority of a State shall enter into an agreement to match information in the database of the statewide voter registration system with information in the database of the motor vehicle authority to the extent required to enable each such official to verify the accuracy of the information provided on applications for voter registration.”