- Court Decisions and Related Documents
|Litigation Home||Ongoing Litigation||Selected Cases||Alphabetical Case Index|
Johnson v. FEC
Gary E. Johnson and James P. Gray, Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees of the Libertarian Party, respectively, applied to the FEC for pre-election public funding for the 2012 general election as “minor party” candidates. They asserted that, as nominees of a minor party under 26 U.S.C. §9004(a)(2)(A), they were entitled to public funding. On September 18, 2012, the Commission rejected the application because the Libertarian Party had received less than five percent of the popular vote in the 2008 Presidential election and therefore did not meet the definition of “minor party” in 26 U.S.C. §9002(7). The Commission also noted that Johnson and Gray had not been candidates in 2008 and therefore did not qualify for public funding under a different provision of the law.
On September 26, 2012, Johnson, Gray, and the Gary Johnson 2012, Inc. campaign committee (the “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California arguing that they were entitled to pre-general election funding. The district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that challenges to Commission determinations regarding such public funds may be brought only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under 26 U.S.C. §9011(a).
On October 17, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Review and an Emergency Motion for Mandatory Injunction in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit asking it to direct the FEC to make an immediate disbursement of the pre-general election public funds. They argued that the FEC wrongfully denied the pre-election funding because of a misapplication of the definition of “minor party.” They argued that, although the term “minor party” is used in 26 U.S.C. §9004(a)(2)(A), it was an inadvertent use of the term by Congress, and was not meant to be subject to the technical definition of “minor party” in 26 U.S.C. §9002(7). Instead, they argued, the term should be interpreted according to the plain meaning of the words.
The appellate court issued a per curiam Order on October 19, 2012, denying the Plaintiffs’ emergency motion, finding that they did not meet the “stringent requirements for the injunctive relief sought… or [demonstrate] a ‘clear and indisputable’ right to mandamus relief.” On October 31, 2012, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the matter without prejudice, before the court could issue a decision on the Plaintiffs’ Petition for Review.
Source: FEC Record -- December 2012
Court Decisions and Related Documents
Court Decisions :
Related Documents :
- Petitioners' Motion to Dismiss Petition for Review (10/31/12) [PDF; 4 pages]
- Emergency Motion for Mandatory Injunction, Writ of Mandamus or Other Appropriate Relief (10/17/12) [PDF; 16 pages]
- Petition for Review (10/17/12) [PDF; 5 pages]
Court Decisions :
- Dismissal Order (10/15/12) [PDF; 4 pages]
- Order to Show Cause re Jurisdiction (10/12/12) [PDF; 3 pages]
- Order to Show Cause re Jurisdiction (10/4/12) [PDF; 2 pages]
Related Documents :
- Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause re Jurisdiction Three-Judge Court (10/11/12) [PDF; 6 pages]
- Defendant FEC's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Mandatory Injunction, or in the alternative Writ of Mandate, or other Appropriate Relief (10/4/12) [PDF; 14 pages]
- Ex Parte Application for Mandatory Injunction, or in the alternative Writ of Mandate, or other Appropriate Relief; Points and Authorities in Support thereof (9/26/12) [PDF; 8 pages]
- Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (9/24/12) [PDF; 18 pages]