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

On July 8, 2024, the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia (the appeals court) upheld the District Court's summary judgment in favor of the Campaign Legal Center and Catherine Hinckley Kelley (plaintiffs).

Background

Plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint on October 6, 2016, alleging that Correct the Record (CTR) spent nearly $6 million in coordination with Hillary for America (HFA) during the lead-up to the 2016 election. On June 4, 2019, the Commission voted to dismiss the complaint, with controlling Commissioners citing the internet exception to the definition of contribution. Plaintiffs filed suit to challenge that dismissal on August 2, 2019. The Commission did not initially appear to defend the dismissal, and the district court permitted CTR and HFA to intervene as defendants. The initial decision by the district court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Commission's decision.

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 the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA or the Act), finding that the determination of whether certain campaign spending is legally categorized as coordinated does indeed qualify as additional “factual information.”

On remand, the district court found that the controlling analysis in the Commission's dismissal 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. In December 2022, the Commission filed an appeal, urging reversal, arguing that it acted consistently with the Act and Commission regulations.

Analysis

The appeals court affirmed the district court's decision that the Commission's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint was contrary to law, noting that the internet exception was never intended "as a FECA-swallowing loophole enabling political committees to launder all their coordinated expenditures via unpaid internet postings." Regarding communications not covered by the internet exemption, the appeals court concluded, “the Commission acted contrary to law in dismissing the complaint for want of reason to believe the relevant expenditures were coordinated with the campaign, despite plausible allegations that Correct the Record coordinated all its expenditures with Hillary for America—and openly acknowledged doing so.” The appeals court remanded the case to the district court with instructions to remand to the FEC to "sketch the bounds" of the internet exemption.

Source: FEC Record — July 2024; January 2023; May 2022; February 2021; December 2020; August 2019

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

Court decisions:

• Mandate (09/03/2024)
• Per Curiam Judgment (07/09/2024)
• Opinion (07/09/2024)
• 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:

• Mandate (09/03/2024)
• 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)