throbber
Cite as: 565 U. S. ____ (2011)
`
` ALITO, J., dissenting
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`1
`
`_________________
`No. 11A501
`_________________
` JOHN DOE #1, ET AL. v. SAM REED, WASHINGTON
`
`
`SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL.
`
`
`
`
`
`ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION
`
` [November 21, 2011]
`The application for an injunction presented to JUSTICE
`
`KENNEDY and by him referred to the Court is denied.
`JUSTICE KAGAN took no part in the consideration or deci-
`sion of this application.
`JUSTICE ALITO, dissenting from denial of injunction.
`In Doe v. Reed, 561 U. S. ___ (2010), the Court rejected
`petitioners’ facial challenge to the Washington law author-
`izing the disclosure of referendum petitions but assured
`petitioners that the disclosure could be blocked if a proper
`party could show that compelled disclosure would result in
`“threats, harassment, or reprisals.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at
`12). Today’s order reveals that this assurance was empty.
`
`On remand, the District Court rejected petitioners’ as-
`
`applied challenge, relying primarily on a highly question-
`able interpretation of our precedents. The District Court
`reasoned that only a select few organizations—what
`the court termed “minor” political parties and “fringe”
`groups—may challenge the disclosure of the names of
`persons who sign a referendum petition. Case No. C09–
`5456 (WD Wash., Oct. 17, 2011), pp. 13–15. If a referen-
`dum succeeds or nearly succeeds (or if the referendum
`supports a position that has not been historically vilified),
`then, according to the District Court, disclosure of the
`names of the citizens who signed the petition cannot be
`shielded no matter how strong the evidence of threatened
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`DOE v. REED
`
` ALITO, J., dissenting
`
`
`retaliation or how severe the nature of the threats. Id., at
`
`15. Whether this is a correct interpretation of our cases
`presents an important question that merits serious appel-
`late review.
`
`The alternative basis for the District Court’s holding—
`that petitioners did not present sufficient evidence of
`threatened harm—also presents an important legal issue,
`namely, the type and quantity of proof that persons object-
`
`ing to disclosure must adduce. As Judge N. R. Smith
`observed below, petitioners adduced evidence that some
`supporters of the referendum “received death threats,”
`“had their children threatened,” and suffered various
`indignities, No. 11–35854 (CA9, Nov. 16, 2011), p. 8 (dis-
`senting opinion), but according to the District Court, this
`was not enough. Whether the standard of proof applied by
`the District Court provides any real protection for persons
`who are threatened with retaliation for asserting their
`First Amendment rights is an important issue that merits
`considered appellate review.
`
`There has been no such review in this case. When
`petitioners took an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the panel
`denied the stay application over Judge Smith’s protest
`that the majority had “race[d] to decide the case at [a]
`preliminary stage based on incomplete information and
`without even reviewing the record.” Id., at 3.
`
`This Court now takes a similar approach. Particularly
`since the referendum at issue went down to defeat more
`than two years ago, the Court’s haste is hard to under-
`stand. I would grant a stay at least until the Court has
`had an opportunity to review the record and to consider
`
`the parties’ arguments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket