CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JOSEPH J. PLATT; PLATT FOR JUDGE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE; MARK W. MILLER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF THE OHIO SUPREME COURT, et al.,
Defendants,

MAUREEN O’CONNOR; RICHARD A. DOVE; SCOTT J. DREXEL,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 17-3461
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 1:13-cv-00435—Michael R. Barrett, District Judge.
Argued: January 25, 2018
Decided and Filed: June 25, 2018
Before: ROGERS, McKEAGUE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Like many states, Ohio wants the voting public to determine who will serve as its judges. Yet Ohio, mindful of the potentially corrosive effects of uninhibited fundraising and partisanship, also wants to protect public trust in the judiciary’s independence. To serve these twin goals, the state fills judicial offices through elections, but imposes fundraising and advocacy limitations on anyone who seeks them. This case requires us to decide whether those limitations accommodate both priorities in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

The plaintiffs in this case say they do not. They object to six limitations, arguing that each variously violates the Constitution’s free speech, due process, and equal protection guarantees. In two separate summary judgment orders, the district court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims. Because Ohio’s rules strike the delicate balance between the Constitution’s commands and the state’s desire to protect judicial integrity, we AFFIRM.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RICHARD E. PAULUS, M.D.,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 17-5410
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Ashland.
No. 0:15-cr-0015-1—David L. Bunning, District Judge.
Argued: April 26, 2018
Decided and Filed: June 25, 2018
Before: BATCHELDER, McKEAGUE, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Mark Twain once quipped that “there are three kinds of falsehood: lies, damnable lies, and statistics.” Dr. Paulus begs to differ and insists that certain statistical estimations cannot be false. As a cardiologist, Paulus interpreted hundreds of angiograms—specialized x-rays that approximate how severely a person’s arteries are blocked. A federal jury convicted him of committing healthcare fraud and making false statements, on the theory that he exaggerated the extent of blockages (e.g., noting 80% blockage instead of 30%), so he could perform and bill for unnecessary procedures. The district court entered a judgment of acquittal and conditionally granted a new trial, reasoning that angiogram interpretations are not facts subject to proof or disproof. Because angiogram interpretations cannot be false, the reasoning goes, Paulus could not have lied. We disagree with this premise, and accordingly REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings.