US Supreme Court will not hear Wisconsin John Doe case

This morning an Order was issued by the U.S. Supreme Court denying the petition for writ of certiorari in the John Doe Case of Wisconsin.

The issue in O'Keefe v. Chisholm on which the review was sought had little to do with the substance of abuses in the John Doe case instead focuses on technical legal points about when federal courts can stop state investigations.

But the case involves the states' ability to regulate campaign coordination and how that ability interacts with 1st Amendment rights.

The investigation is on hold because of a separate federal court order and also because the state court ordered it.

Legal Insurrection has the Supreme Court Order

Sound bad? Nah. It's a mess. Let Wisconsin slug it out further. Commenters at Legal Insurrection appear to be reliably eager legal students, they seem ever sincere.

American Human | May 18, 2015 at 10:39 am 

This case is a bit complex for me what with dueling federal and state courts and now the SCOTUS declining to take the case and this being considered but not that. I’m not complaining but I am interested. Can someone, maybe Mr. Jacobson, please provide a bit more context. Is the SCOTUS not hearing the case good for the cause of justice and liberty or bad? I’m not sure.  

platypus / May18,2914 at 8:44 pm  

Well, it is an indirect statement that the court does not consider this particular controversy worthy of its time in regards to constitutional issues. Cynics speculate that it is too hot for the court, and they may be right, but the truth is that these decisions (grant or deny) are NOT made by the judges. Anonymous clerks decide which cases get reviewed and they NEVER give a reason.

Chuck Skinner | May 18, 2015 at 3:32 pm 

Wait, wait wait….
“The motion of respondents John T. Chisholm, David Robles, and Bruce J. Landgraf for leave to file a brief in opposition under seal with redacted copies for the public record is granted.” 

I wonder what on earth Chisholm, Robles and Landgraf could possibly be trying to hide from the public. 

That one should have been denied, and the SCOTUS should have forced their statements into the daylight so they could be analyzed by the public to determine if the “public servants” involved in this case should be re-elected (or possibly jailed).