Background
Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Americans for Prosperity challenged Delaware’s Elections Disclosure Act, which requires groups spending more than $500 on electioneering communications shortly before an election to disclose donors who contributed more than $100 during the applicable election cycle. The organizations alleged that the law’s nationwide reach and potentially four-year lookback period violated the First Amendment, both facially and as applied.
The organizations planned to run electioneering communications before Delaware’s November 2026 election only if enforcement of the Act were enjoined. At the preliminary-injunction stage, they presented declarations from a single employee describing generic threats previously directed at employees, supporters, and donors, but offered no live testimony or donor affidavits linking disclosure to likely threats, harassment, or reprisals. The district court denied preliminary relief, citing the limited record, the Third Circuit’s earlier decision upholding the Act, and the law’s decade-long enforcement.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction. The court stressed that likelihood of success and irreparable harm do not automatically entitle a plaintiff to preliminary relief, even when First Amendment rights are implicated. Courts must also weigh the balance of equities and public interest, and preliminary injunctions ordinarily serve to preserve the status quo until the merits can be fully adjudicated.
The panel did not decide whether the Supreme Court’s later donor-disclosure decisions undermined the Third Circuit’s precedent upholding Delaware’s law or whether the challengers would ultimately prevail. It instead found the preliminary record too underdeveloped to assess the law’s tailoring or the probability and extent of harm to donors. Given Delaware’s interest in enforcing its longstanding law, the challengers’ delay, the absence of any risk that the case would become moot without immediate relief, and the proximity of the election, the balance of equities favored preserving the status quo.
Key Takeaways
- A showing of some likelihood of success and some irreparable First Amendment injury does not make a preliminary injunction automatic.
- A party seeking to block a longstanding disclosure law must substantiate the probability and degree of harm; generic, undated evidence of threats to an organization may be insufficient.
- Courts may give substantial equitable weight to preserving established election rules, particularly when a challenge is brought close to an election and can proceed to final judgment without interim relief.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes district courts’ broad equitable discretion at the preliminary-injunction stage and treats preservation of the status quo as especially important when plaintiffs seek to suspend a longstanding state law shortly before an election. It also clarifies that presumed irreparability of First Amendment harm does not relieve challengers of showing how probable and substantial that harm is.
The ruling leaves the underlying constitutional questions open. The challengers may continue litigating whether intervening Supreme Court decisions require the Third Circuit to revisit its prior approval of Delaware’s donor-disclosure regime and whether the Act is unconstitutional facially or as applied on a fuller evidentiary record.