Campaign Legal Center, et al. v. FEC (19-2336 / 21-5081, 22-5336)

On December 8, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to the Campaign Legal Center and Catherine Hinckley Kelley (plaintiffs). Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Commission for the dismissal of their administrative complaint against Correct the Record (CTR) and Hillary for America (HFA).

Background

The administrative complaint, filed on October 6, 2016, alleged that CTR and HFA engaged in an illegal multimillion-dollar coordination scheme. On June 4, 2019, the Commission voted to dismiss the complaint, and plaintiffs filed suit to challenge that dismissal on August 2, 2019. The plaintiffs alleged that the Commission’s nonenforcement deprived them of information to which they were entitled under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) as well as a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and asked the court to declare the dismissal contrary to law and to remand the matter to the Commission for reconsideration. When the Commission did not appear to defend the suit, HFA and CTR intervened as defendants and moved to dismiss the complaint. The Court granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs in two separate rulings and dismissed the case. The first decision found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to claim an informational injury because the legal determination of coordination was not “informational.” The second dismissed the APA claim.

On April 19, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the district court’s dismissal as to informational injury under FECA, finding that the determination of whether certain campaign spending is legally categorized as coordinated does indeed qualify as additional “factual information.”

Analysis

On remand, the district court found that the controlling analysis in the Commission’s dismissal of the administrative complaint was contrary to examples and reasoning the Commission itself had offered when promulgating the applicable regulations. As such, the dismissal was contrary to law. The court further stated that there was ample evidence of coordination that the Commission failed to consider, illustrating that the dismissal was arbitrary and capricious.

Because the Commission's decision was based on an impermissible interpretation of FECA and was otherwise arbitrary and capricious, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion.

Source: FEC Record — January 2023; May 2022; February 2021; December 2020; August 2019

Appeals Court (DC Circuit) (21-5081, 22-5336)

Court decisions:

• Per Curiam Order (04/10/2023)
• Mandate (06/13/2022)
• Per Curiam Order (04/19/2022)
• Opinion (04/19/2022)

Related documents:

• Reply Brief for the Federal Election Commission (07/14/2023)
• Plaintiff-Appellees' Response Brief (06/23/2023)
• Corrected Brief Amicus Curiae of Lee E. Goodman, Former FEC Chair and Commissioner in Support of Appellant (06/02/2023)
• Brief for the Federal Election Commission (05/24/2023)
• Plaintiffs-Appellees' Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss (02/23/2023)
• Federal Election Commission's Opposition to Plaintiffs-Appellees' Motion to Dismiss (02/16/2023)
• Plaintiffs-Appellees' Motion to Dismiss (02/06/2023)
• Appellants' Reply Brief (09/08/2021)
• Intervenor-Appellees’ Principal and Response Brief (08/18/2021)
• Appellants' Corrected Opening Brief (07/22/2021)

District Court (DC) (19-2336)

Court decisions:

• Order (02/01/2023)
• Memorandum Opinion (02/01/2023)
• Order (12/08/2022)
• Memorandum Opinion (12/08/2022)
• Mandate (06/13/2022)
• Memorandum Opinion (02/12/2021)
• Order (02/12/2021)
• Memorandum Opinion (12/02/2020)
• Order (12/02/2020)
• Memorandum Opinion (06/04/2020)
• Order (06/04/2020)
• Order (11/21/2019)
• Memorandum Opinion (11/15/2019)

Related documents:

• Defendant Federal Election Commission's Reply in Support of Motion for Stay of Remand Order Pending Appeal (01/06/2023)
• Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Federal Election Commission's Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (01/04/2023)
• Defendant Federal Election Commission's Notice of Appeal (12/21/2022)
• Defendant Federal Election Commission's Motion for Stay of Remand Order Pending Appeal (12/21/2022)Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Second Motion for Summary Judgment (10/17/2022)
• Defendant-Intervenors’ Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Second Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support of Defendant-Intervenors’ Second Motion for Summary Judgment (10/03/2022)
• Plaintiff's Second Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Combined Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendant-Intervenors' Second Motion for Summary Judgment (09/12/2022)
• Defendant-Intervenors' Second Motion for Summary Judgment (08/12/2022)
• Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant-Intervenors’ Second Motion for Summary Judgment (08/12/2022)
• Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal (04/07/2021)
• Reply in Support of Defendant-Intervenors’ Supplemental Memorandum in Further Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment (01/27/2021)
• Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum in Further Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment (01/13/2021)
• Defendant-Intervenors’ Supplemental Memorandum in Further Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment (12/23/2020)
• Reply Brief in Support of Defendant-Intervenors' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (10/16/2020)
• Plaintiffs' Combined Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant-Intervenors' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (09/25/2020)
• Proposed Amicus Curiae Brief of the Institute for Free Speech in Support of No Party on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (09/09/2020)
• Hillary For America Correct the Record, Intervenors Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Intervenors Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (08/31/2020)
• Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (07/24/2020)
• Defendant-Intervenors Answer to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (06/18/2020)
• Defendant-Intervenors' Reply Brief in Support of their Amended Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (03/27/2020)
• Plaintiff's Opposition to Correct the Record's and Hillary For America's Amended Motion to Dismiss (03/05/2020)
• Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant-Intervenors' Amended Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (02/04/2020)
• FEC's Certified List of Administrative Record Documents in MUR 7146 (01/06/2020)
• FEC's Notice of Filing of Certified List of Administrative Record Documents in MUR 7146 (01/06/2020)
• Plaintiffs' Opposition to Correct the Record's and Hillary for America's Second Motion to Intervene (11/15/2019)
• Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (10/29/2019)
• Reply in Support of Hillary for America's and Correct the Record's Motion to Intervene (10/29/2019)
• Plaintiffs' Opposition to Correct the Record's and Hillary for America's Motion to Intervene (10/15/2019)
• Motion to Intervene as Defendants (10/01/2019)
• Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (08/02/2019)