CREW v. FEC (D.D.C. 1:14-cv-1419) (District Court)
On September 19, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the “Court”) ruled that the Commission’s dismissal of two administrative complaints filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and its founder Melanie Sloan (“CREW”) was contrary to law. Read more...
Pursuing America's Greatness v. FEC (Appeals Court)
On August 2, 2016, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Pursuing America's Greatness's (PAG) request for a preliminary injunction against the application of a Commission regulation, 11 CFR 102.14(a), to PAG’s websites and social media pages. Read more...
Pillar of Law Institute, et al. v. FEC (District Court)
On July 22, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming entered a Consent Order and Judgment whereby the Commission agreed not to enforce the ban on corporate contributions against the Pillar of Law Institute ("Pillar") and two unnamed plaintiffs (collectively, "Plaintiffs") with respect to contributions to convention delegates. Read more...
CREW v. FEC (16-1088) (New)
On June 10, 2016, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and its Executive Director, Noah Bookbinder, (collectively, "CREW") filed suit against the Commission in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. CREW alleges that the Commission's dismissal of its administrative complaint (Matter Under Review (MUR) 6661) against Robert E. Murray; Murray Energy Corporation; Murray Energy Corporation PAC and Michael G. Ruble, in his official capacity as treasurer, (collectively, "Respondents") was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and contrary to law. Read more...
Holmes, et al. v. FEC (Appeals
Plaintiffs Laura Holmes and Paul Jost claim that the per-election limits on individual contributions to candidates violate the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit declined to certify the constitutional questions to the en banc court of appeals and granted the FEC's motion for summary judgment. On April 26, 2016, the court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision not to certify the Fifth Amendment question, but reversed the court's decision not to certify the First Amendment question and to grant summary judgment to the Commission on plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims. Read more...
Latest Articles by Category: