Fish v Kobach

Kobach appealed the preliminary inunction baring him as Kansas Secretary of State from requiring people using the motor voter forms to produce documentary proof of citizenship. The panel affirmed. It adopted the 9th Circuit synthesis of United States Supreme Court precedent for Election Clause cases holding that federal and state law on voter registration are to be read as a single set of laws and that in the case of conflict federal law controls. It held that the presumption against preemption in Supremacy Clause cases does not apply in Election Clause cases and thus there is no need for a plain statement of intent to preempt contrary state law. It held that under 52 USC 20504(c)(2), states are barred form requiring more that eh “minimum amount of information necessary” to establish eligibility to vote, the plain and ordinary meaning of “minimum” here is least possible amount and “necessary” does not mean absolutely necessary. It next held that the attestation set out in 20504(c)(3) is preemptively sufficient, but, extending Supreme Court precedent on a different section of the motor voter law, further held that a state can rebut this factually by showing that significant number of noncitizens have registered to vote. It therefore rejected Fish’s argument that the documentation requirement is per se barred by 20504(c)(2). The panel also rejected Kobach’s arguments holding federal law, not state law, controls when there is a conflict, the minimum information standard extends beyond the federal motor voter form, the statue does constrain states from requiring more than the federal form requires and the panel’s construction of the statute is not absurd nor does it lead to an absurd result. It held that as of the time of the preliminary injunction, Kobach failed to prove a substantial number of noncitizens registered to vote as his evidence only supported a finding of 30 such people over a decade and he conceded that the appeals board would accept a statement form any rejected citizen undermining the argument that more is needed than a statement under oath and this lack of evidence also required rejection of his Qualifications Clause argument. Thus, Fish proved likelihood of success on the merits and the panel analyzed the other factors for issuing a preliminary injunction and held the threat to some 18,000 Kansan that their right to vote will be dined was a threat of irreparable harm and there was no evidence the delay in bringing suit prejudiced Kobach and failing to comply with the documentary proof requirement does change the theta analysis as Fish faced financial and administrate obstacles and the appeals board has only been used times and fish neither entered a contract with Kansas or committed misconduct and the administrative burden on Kansas was modest at best thus the balance of equities factored Fish. It finally held that the injunction here served congressional intent to increase voter registration and thus was in the public interest.Fox v TransAm Leasing, Inc.

TransAm appealed the grant of partial summary judgment to Fox on his truth in leasing violation claim and the rejection of its summary judgment motion on damages. The panel afield the violation but reversed on damages. It held that under 49 CFR 376.12(i), leasing companies cannot require independent truckers to purchase goods or services as requirement to lease, TransAm required payment for its own satellite communications system and thus violated the regulation. The panel noted this outcome is consistent with the intent of the statute 376.12(i) implements. It rejected TransAm’s argument that 49 CFR 376.12(h) changed the outcome as that provision only applies to legally authorized deductions form gross pay and distinguished the 7th Circuit case relied upon by Trans Am noting it dealt with liability insurance and was controlled by a different rule. The panel reversed on damages as Fox failed to present any evidence of damages in his summary judgment response.