• Connect with us
  • Subscription Link
  • Bookmark Us
  • AF Twitter
  • AF YouTube
  • AF LinkedIn

    Craig Engle Featured in National Journal about Supreme Court Arguments in Same-Sex Marriage, and Quoted in Time about Disgraced Congressman

    April 16, 2015

    Arent Fox Political Law partner Craig Engle was featured in the National Journal about a new argument being made in favor of same sex marriage. The article stated Republicans are taking emotion out of the debate and bringing a “strictly mathematical approach to the Supreme Court to prove how an anti-same-sex marriage decision would curtail a constitutional right” — your right to make a political contribution.

    Mr. Engle was also quoted by Time about former Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) who is being sued by political donors alleging he used campaign money to pay for gifts and leisure activities.

    The National Journal article explained that Arent Fox client Liberty Education Forum (LEF) filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court arguing that prohibitions against same sex marriage actually violate the First, and not just the Fifth, Amendment when they cut the ability of same sex couples to make political contributions in half. The brief, which was authored by Mr. Engle as counsel to LEF, shows the inequality when both a husband and a wife are allowed to make political contributions with a single income, but same-sex couples cannot because they are not “married spouses.” The article noted that ideological adversaries Ted Olson and John Bonifaz agree the brief makes a good point and concluded: “For a court that has repeatedly ruled that campaign contributions are a way to express free speech, it could be a convincing argument.”

    In the case against Rep. Schock, Mr. Engle spoke to Time about how political donors do not have a legal right to seek a refund from a Congressman that has left office. Mr. Engle said “I think what you have here is a moral obligation that the congressman has a lot of explaining to do. But certifying a class action of donors and giving them a right to a refund under the racketeering statutes, I don’t see that going forward.”

    To read the National Journal article, click here. To read the Time article, click here.