Richard L. Jackson, Jackson for Governor, Inc. v. William Burton Jones, WBJ Leadership Committee, Inc., Burt Jones for Georgia, Inc., et al.

Jackson v. Jones · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · June 12, 2026 · No. Nos. 26-10854, 26-10886

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirms a preliminary injunction against a Georgia lieutenant governor's leadership committee. The court concludes that Georgia's campaign-finance scheme likely violates the First Amendment by permitting incumbent Lieutenant Governor William Jones to raise and spend unlimited funds in support of his gubernatorial campaign while imposing contribution limits on challenger Richard Jackson. The court also concludes that the leadership committee's challenged conduct is likely fairly attributable to the State for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Writing for the Court
Grant, Circuit Judge; William Pryor, Chief Judge; Jordan, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decision date
June 12, 2026
Docket number
Nos. 26-10854, 26-10886
Procedural posture
Consolidated cross-appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granting a preliminary injunction against Jones's leadership committee and staying that injunction pending appeal.
Standard of review
A preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion; underlying legal conclusions are reviewed de novo and factual findings for clear error.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Richard L. Jackson, Jackson for Governor, Inc., William Burton Jones, WBJ Leadership Committee, Inc. v. William Burton Jones, WBJ Leadership Committee, Inc., Burt Jones for Georgia, Inc., Christopher M. Carr, et al.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

campaign financefirst amendmentelection lawsection 1983equitable relief

Practice areas

election lawconstitutional lawcivil rightscampaign financeappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Jackson had Article III standing to seek a preliminary injunction against Jones's leadership committee.
  2. Whether Georgia's leadership-committee statute likely violates the First Amendment by imposing disparate contribution limits and fundraising advantages on candidates competing for the same office.
  3. Whether Jones's formally private leadership committee likely acted under color of state law and constituted state action for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
  4. Whether Jackson satisfied the remaining preliminary-injunction factors.
  5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by enjoining the leadership committee from soliciting contributions and making expenditures in support of Jones's campaign.

Holdings

  1. Jackson had standing because the leadership committee's enhanced fundraising and spending created a concrete competitive injury, that injury was traceable to the committee's conduct, and an injunction would redress it.
  2. Jackson was likely to succeed in showing that Georgia's leadership-committee statute violates the First Amendment because it gives some candidates unlimited contributions and direct coordinated support while imposing ordinary contribution limits on their competitors.
  3. Jackson was likely to succeed in showing that Jones's leadership committee acted under color of state law when exercising the statutory fundraising powers available only because Jones was the incumbent Lieutenant Governor.
  4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Jackson satisfied the remaining preliminary-injunction factors.
  5. The district court acted within its discretion by enjoining Jones's leadership committee from soliciting contributions and making expenditures in support of Jones's gubernatorial campaign until Jones became the Republican nominee or further order of the court.

Key quotations

The First Amendment does not forgive such favoritism. (3)
That “scheme of discriminatory contribution limits,” like the one here, was not justified by “any governmental interest in eliminating corruption or the perception of corruption,” and it could not survive First Amendment challenge. (15-16)
The leadership committee scheme thus imposes—quite directly—different contribution limits “on candidates vying for the same seat.” (17)
The sum of it is this: the leadership committee statute offers certain extra powers, available to no private citizen, that are entirely dependent on Jones’s status as Lieutenant Governor. (26)
Jackson has shown that it is likely—very likely—that the Georgia leadership committee statute’s limited exception to campaign-funding limits puts him on unequal footing in violation of the First Amendment. (34)

Factual background

Georgia law permits specified incumbent officials, including the incumbent Lieutenant Governor, to create leadership committees that may accept unlimited contributions and directly coordinate expenditures with a candidate's campaign. Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones formed the WBJ Leadership Committee, which raised millions of dollars and used those funds to support Jones's campaign for Governor. Richard Jackson, a private citizen and competing Republican gubernatorial candidate, could not form a leadership committee and remained subject to Georgia's ordinary contribution limits.

Procedural history

Jackson and his campaign committee challenged Georgia's leadership-committee statute under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court issued a temporary restraining order and later entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting Jones's leadership committee from soliciting contributions or making expenditures in support of Jones's gubernatorial campaign. The district court stayed the injunction pending appeal, and the Eleventh Circuit expedited and affirmed the preliminary injunction.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…