No. 18-284

Scott Gessler v. Matt Smith, et al.

Lower Court: Colorado
Docketed: 2018-09-05
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-law administrative-procedure administrative-state civil-penalty civil-rights due-process government-ethics notice quasi-criminal vagueness void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw ERISA DueProcess FirstAmendment Securities Immigration JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2018-10-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Are civil laws that impose a personal penalty subject to the same void-for-vagueness standards as criminal laws and deportation laws?

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED By popular initiative Colorado created an Independent Ethics Commission with the power to enforce a gift ban and specific influence peddling standards. Expansively interpreting its own jurisdiction, the commission imposed a_ personal penalty and public censure on the sitting Secretary of State under a statute requiring all government workers to act “for the benefit of the people of the state.” The commission provided shifting notice of hundreds of statutes and rules before the hearing, preventing the Secretary from having meaningful pre-hearing notice. The question presented is: Are civil laws that impose a personal penalty subject to the same void-for-vagueness standards as criminal laws and deportation laws?

Docket Entries

2018-10-29
Petition DENIED.
2018-10-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/26/2018.
2018-09-25
Waiver of right of respondents Matt Smith, et al. to respond filed.
2018-09-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 5, 2018)

Attorneys

Matt Smith, et al.
Melanie Joy SnyderColorado Department of Law, Respondent
Melanie Joy SnyderColorado Department of Law, Respondent
Scott Gessler
Michael Lee FranciscoStatecraft PLLC, Petitioner
Michael Lee FranciscoStatecraft PLLC, Petitioner