The Third Circuit held that permanent injunctive relief should extend to all future elections for Appellants Benezet and Pool only. Appellants are out-of-state petition circulators. In Pennsylvania, a candidate seeking to be placed on a major political party’s ballot must obtain 2,000 signatures from individuals who are both registered voters within the Commonwealth and members of the candidate’s political party. A “circulator” gets signatures for nomination petitions for a prospective candidate. This matter originated in 2016 and challenged Pennsylvania’s ban on out-of-state circulators for primary election petitions. In 2020, the District Court found that the ban was not facially unconstitutional, but it was unconstitutional as applied to Benezet and Pool for the 2020 election only. This appeal followed after the District Court declined to expand the injunctive relief to cover future elections. The Third Circuit was tasked with deciding “whether an injunction enjoining Pennsylvania’s election officials from enforcing the In-State Witness Requirement as to Appellants should be made permanent and extended to future elections beyond 2020.” The Court vacated the District Court’s order and concluded that a permanent injunction was appropriate for Appellants Benezet and Pool only, so long as they agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.