Alexandria, VA — The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in Oregon v. Committee to Recall Dan Holladay, urging the Court to hear the case and reject a dangerous legal precedent from the Ninth Circuit that undermines state sovereignty over election procedures.
At issue is the Ninth Circuit’s controversial decision in Angle v. Miller (2012), which applies strict First Amendment scrutiny to neutral, broadly applicable ballot-access requirements—such as signature-gathering rules for initiatives and recalls. PILF argues this unprecedented approach invites federal courts to override state laws and micromanage election procedures, violating the Constitution’s federalist structure.
“Nothing in the Constitution requires any state to allow ballot initiatives,” said J. Christian Adams, President of PILF. “But under Angle, unelected federal judges are now empowered to rewrite state election laws that have long been used across the country.”
The brief highlights the widespread nature of these neutral requirements: nearly half of U.S. states allow citizen-led initiatives, and 19 permit recalls. Many impose signature thresholds and time limits—rules that could be thrown into legal jeopardy if Angle remains binding law in the Ninth Circuit.
PILF also emphasizes that courts in other circuits, including the Sixth and Seventh, do not subject such laws to strict scrutiny, creating a clear circuit split ripe for resolution by the Supreme Court.
Read PILF’s amicus brief here.
Contact:
Doug Blair
Director of Communications
dblair@publicinterestlegal.org
(503) 956-9899