172654P.pdf   11/01/2019  Ronald Calzone  v.  Donald Summers
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-2654
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Stras, Author, for the Court En Banc, joined by Smith, Chief 
   Judge, and Gruender, Erickson, Grasz,and Kobes, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil Case - First Amendment. District court's order denying preliminary 
   injunction is vacated. As applied challenge to Missouri law that requires 
   an individual and nonprofit business, who are neither paid nor expend 
   money in speaking to legislators, to register as a legislative lobbyist 
   violates the First Amendment. Applying law in this circumstance does not 
   bear a substantial relationship to its anti-corruption interest or 
   transparency interest. Facial challenge to statute's application to anyone 
   "designated" to act as a lobbyist is not unconstitutionally vague. Judge 
   Grasz concurs, addressing level of scrutiny to apply to lobbying 
   disclosure laws. Judge Colloton dissents, joined by Loken and Benton. 
   Judge Shepherd dissents, joined by Colloton and Kelly. 
  
172654P.pdf   11/28/2018  Ronald Calzone  v.  Nancy Hagan
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-2654
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Colloton and Stras, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Constitutional law. In action by an unpaid lobbyist to enjoin 
   enforcement of Mo. Rev. Stat. Sections 105.470 and 105.473 which require 
   lobbyists to register and report certain activities, the district court 
   did not err in denying the request for permanent injunctive relief; the 
   district court properly analyzed the claims under an intermediate or 
   exacting level of scrutiny, rather than strict scrutiny; Missouri has a 
   sufficiently important governmental interest in government transparency to 
   require both paid and unpaid lobbyists to register and report; the 
   registration requirements in Sec. 105.473 are substantially related to 
   Missouri's interest in transparency; the burden placed on plaintiff is not 
   disproportionate to Missouri's interest and the court did not err in 
   finding the statute was constitutional as applied to plaintiff; facial 
   challenge to the word "designated" in the definition of a legislative 
   lobbyist in Sec. 105.470(5)(c) rejected. Judge Stras, dissenting.