Molinari v. Bloomberg

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that Anderson-Burdick was “completely inapposite” with respect to a challenge to New York City’s term-limits law, which did not involve “direct restrictions on speech or access to the ballot”
• explaining that because the plaintiff failed to address a claim in opposition to summary judgment, “it appears to th[e] court that he has abandoned it”
• applying rational basis review to challenge regarding New York City's law on term limits for certain city officials
• noting that, “as the Supreme Court has recognized, if a [S]tate chooses to confer the right of referendum to its citizens, it is ‘obligated to do so in a manner consistent with the Constitution’” (quoting Meyer, 486 U.S. at 420)
• applying rational basis review to challenge regarding New York City’s law on term limits for certain city officials
• declining to apply Anderson-Burdick where the only effect on First Amendment rights was “incidental[] and constitutionally insignificant”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).