IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NATIONAL COALITION ON BLACK CIVIC PARTICIPATION, MARY WINTER, GENE STEINBERG, NANCY HART, SARAH WOLFF, KAREN SLAVEN, KATE KENNEDY, EDA DANIEL, and ANDREA SFERES, Civil Action No.: 20-cv-8668-VM Plaintiffs, v. JACOB WOHL, JACK BURKMAN, J.M. BURKMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, PROJECT 1599, and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ....................................................................................... II II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ 2 A. Defendants Create and Disseminate Deceptive Robocalls Preying on Historical Fears of Racism through the Use of Insidious Stereotypes ................... 2 B. Defendants’ Attempts to Intimidate Voters Have Already Been Successful ........ 5 C. Plaintiff NCBCP Diverted its Limited Resources to Remediate the Injuries Caused by Defendants’ Robocalls to NCBCP’s Beneficiaries .............................. 7 D. Defendants are Criminally Charged in Michigan for the Underlying Conduct at Issue Here ............................................................................................ 8 E. A TRO is Necessary Because Defendants have a Long History of Relentlessly Engaging in Fraud and Disinformation Campaigns and have Publicly Trumpeted their Mission to Disrupt the November Election .................. 8 III. LEGAL STANDARD ...................................................................................................... 11 IV. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS .................................. 12 A. Plaintiffs Are Likely To Show That Defendants Have Violated Section 11(b) of The Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b) ......................... 12 B. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Show That Defendants Have Violated The Ku Klux Klan Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).................................................................... 15 V. PLAINTIFFS WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM IN THE ABSENCE OF PRELIMINARY RELIEF ................................................................................................ 19 VI. THE BALANCE OF THE EQUITIES TIPS DECIDEDLY IN PLAINTIFFS’ FAVOR ............................................................................................................................ 23 VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 24 -i- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992) .............................................................................................................1, 24 Cacchillo v. Insmed, Inc., 638 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2011)...............................................................................................11, 23 Coleman v. Board of Educ. of City of Mount Vernon, 990 F. Supp. 221 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ..........................................................................................20 Daschle v. Thune, No. 04-CV-4177, Dkt. No. 6 (D.S.D. Nov. 2, 2004) .........................................................13, 14 Fish v. Kobach, 840 F.3d 710 (10th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................21 Fisk v. Letterman, 424 F. Supp. 2d 670 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)......................................................................................16 Forsberg v. Pefanis, 634 Fed. App’x 676 (11th Cir. 2015) ......................................................................................20 Freeman & Bass, P.A. v. State of N.J. Comm'n of Investigation, 359 F. Supp. 1053 (D.N.J. 1973) .............................................................................................19 Great American Fed. S. L. Assn. v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366 (1979) .................................................................................................................19 Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971) ...................................................................................................................16 Kemler v. Poston, 108 F. Supp. 2d 529 (E.D. Va. 2000) ......................................................................................24 The Ku Klux Cases, 110 U.S. 651 (1884) ......................................................................................16 Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719 (1983) .................................................................................................................16 League of United Latin Am. Citizens - Richmond Region Council 4614 v. Pub. Interest Legal Found., No. 1:18-CV-00423, 2018 WL 3848404 (E.D. Va. Aug. 13, 2018) ............................... passim ii League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................21 Mahmood v. Nielsen, 312 F. Supp. 3d 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)......................................................................................11 Mizell v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 427 F.2d 468 (5th Cir. 1970) ...................................................................................................19 Paynes v. Lee, 377 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1967) .........................................................................................16, 17, 20 Puerto Rican Legal Def. and Educ. Fund, Inc. v. City of New York, 769 F. Supp. 74 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) ............................................................................................20 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) ...................................................................................................................1 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 544 (1964) .................................................................................................................20 Smith v. Meese, 821 F.2d 1484 (11th Cir. 1987) ...............................................................................................21 Spencer v. Blackwell, 347 F.Supp.2d 528 (S.D. Ohio 2004) ........................................................................................1 People of New York ex rel. Spitzer v. Cty. of Delaware, 82 F. Supp. 2d 12 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) .........................................................................................24 United States v. Bruce, 353 F.2d 474 (5th Cir. 1965) ...................................................................................................18 United States v. Clark, 249 F. Supp. 720 (S.D. Ala. 1965)...........................................................................................18 United States v. Nguyen, 673 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 2012) .....................................................................................14, 15, 18 Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) .....................................................................................................................25 Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) ...................................................................................................................24 Williams v. Salerno, 792 F.2d 323 (2d Cir. 1986)...............................................................................................20, 21 iii Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) .................................................................................................................24 Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 912 ..............................................................................................................................23 42 U.S.C. § 1971(b) .......................................................................................................................13 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(b) ......................................................................................................................12 42 U.S.C. § 1985 ............................................................................................................................20 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) ............................................................................................................... passim 52 U.S.C. § 10101(b) .....................................................................................................................13 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b) ...........................................................................................................1, 12, 14 Civil Rights Act of 1871 ................................................................................................................15 Civil Rights Act of 1957 ................................................................................................................13 Civil Rights Act § 131(b) ...............................................................................................................13 Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 ...........................................................................................11, 14, 15, 16 Title VII .........................................................................................................................................19 Voting Rights Act of 1965 § 11(b) ........................................................................................ passim Constitutional Provisions Fifteenth Amendment ....................................................................................................................16 Other Authorities Cady