Buckley v. Valeo

Background

An application was filed on December 17, 1975 asking the Court to block certain officials from approving federal certifications that allow public payments. The request targeted approvals under two federal statutes for payments to finance campaign activities of some presidential hopefuls and for payments to certain presidential nominating conventions. The Chief Justice presented the application to the full Court after the Government, through the Solicitor General, filed opposition.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the Court should issue an immediate court order blocking those certifications and payments while appeals in the case proceed. The Court considered the application but found there was no majority of Justices willing to grant the requested blocking order, so the application for an injunction was denied. Four Justices would have granted the injunction, and one Justice took no part in the consideration or disposition of the application.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to issue the blocking order, officials were not stopped by this emergency application from making the certifications that permit public payments, at least while appeals continue. The ruling is procedural and not a final decision on the underlying legal claims. The parties still have their appeals pending, and the ultimate legal outcome could change the availability of these payments later.

Dissents or concurrances

A notable point is that four Justices would have granted the injunction, showing a divided Court on whether to grant immediate relief, while one Justice did not participate.