This case was brought by physicians who served poor patients through the Medicaid program in Ohio. They filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on September 3, 2010, against the Secretary of State, challenging a state law that made it a crime for attorney-general ...
read more >
This case was brought by physicians who served poor patients through the Medicaid program in Ohio. They filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on September 3, 2010, against the Secretary of State, challenging a state law that made it a crime for attorney-general or county-prosecutor candidates to accept campaign contributions from Medicaid providers or any person having an ownership interest in the provider. The plaintiffs intended to donate money to then-candidate for Ohio Attorney General Cordray's campaign but feared prosecution. The cause of action in this case was 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs were represented by private counsel, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. They also alleged that the Statute in question violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
On October 27, 2010, the District Court (Judge Donald C. Nugent) denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Lavin v. Brunner, 2010 WL 4340981 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 27, 2010). After discovery, both parties filed motions for summary judgment.
On July 22, 2011, Judge Nugent granted summary judgment for the defendant and the plaintiffs appealed. Lavin v. Husted, 803 F. Supp. 2d 756 (N.D. Ohio 2011) rev'd and remanded, 689 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2012). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Raymond M. Kethledge) reversed the lower court's decision on August 3, 2012, holding that the Statute here violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment interests. Lavin v. Husted, 689 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2012). As a general rule for contribution limits to be permissible, the government needs to show that the limits are closely drawn to serve a sufficiently important state interest. The Court found that the contribution ban that applied to all Medicaid providers was not closely drawn to serve the important state interests to prevent corruption and fraud committed by only a handful of them.
On September 11, 2012, the District Court in its Judgment declared the Statute unconstitutional in its entirety, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court further issued a permanent injunction, prohibiting the Secretary of State from enforcing the Statute against candidates to whom the named plaintiffs may elect to donate money or the plaintiffs themselves.
On June 13, 2013, the Court awarded attorneys' fees and litigation costs in sum of $135,223.74 to the plaintiffs. Lavin v. Husted, 2013 WL 2950334 (N.D. Ohio June 13, 2013). This ended the case.Emma Bao - 07/03/2013