skip navigation
Here's how you know US flag signifying that this is a United States Federal Government website

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Dot gov

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

SSL

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Federal Election Commission | United States of America

CREW v. FEC (22-0035)

Summary

On November 10, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the court) denied Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s (CREW) motion for an order declaring that the FEC failed to conform to the court’s judgment.

Background

In response to an administrative complaint filed by CREW, the Commission found reason to believe that Freedom Vote violated the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Commission’s regulations. Two years later, in 2021, the Commission closed the file.

In January 2022, CREW filed suit challenging the FEC’s dismissal of its administrative complaint against Freedom Vote as contrary to law. Subsequently, the three controlling commissioners issued their justification. Initially, the Commission did not appear to defend the lawsuit. CREW moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, default judgment. The Commission moved for a voluntary remand without entering judgment in CREW’s favor.

On March 17, 2025, the court denied the FEC’s motion for voluntary remand and granted CREW’s motion for summary judgment. The court stated that the Commission “will have 30 days to take further action on CREW’s complaint and, should it decide not to pursue the complaint further, dismiss it with an adequate, contemporaneous explanation for the dismissal.” On March 27, 2025, the commissioners voted once more to close the file and, on April 15, 2025, provided their statements of reasons.

Analysis

The court noted that, while earlier case precedent reinforces the importance of timely agency explanations, it does not explain just how “contemporaneous a ‘contemporaneous’ statement must be.” For additional guidance, the court looked to Campaign Legal Center v. FEC (CLC), where the court found that 26 days later was within the realm of reason to qualify as a contemporaneous rationale.

In evaluating whether the FEC conformed with its remand order, the court found the explanation provided by the Commission to close the file in this matter 18 days after the vote was both “adequate and contemporaneous.” Accordingly, the court denied CREW’s motion for an order declaring that the FEC failed to conform to its judgment.

Source: FEC Record — November 2025; March 2025; May 2024; January 2022

Documents

District Court (DC)

Court decisions:

Related documents:

This information is not intended to replace the law or to change its meaning, nor does this information create or confer any rights for or on any person or bind the Federal Election Commission or the public.

The reader is encouraged also to consult the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), Commission regulations (Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations), Commission advisory opinions and applicable court decisions.