National Republican Senatorial Committee et al v. Federal Election Commission et al (22-639 / 24-3051)

On September 5, 2024, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that the Federal Election Campaign Act’s (the Act) limits on coordinated party expenditures do not violate the First Amendment either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with “party coordinated communications.” The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), Senator J.D. Vance and former Representative Steve Chabot (plaintiffs) sought declaratory and injunctive relief baring the FEC from enforcing the limits against them.

Background

Under the Act, a national party committee and state party committee may make expenditures in connection with the general election campaigns of federal candidates that are coordinated with those candidates. These coordinated party expenditures do not count against the contribution limits but are subject to a separate set of limits. These inflation-adjusted limits are based on the office sought and the relevant voting-age population.

According to the plaintiffs, limiting the expenditures a party may make in coordination with its nominees unconstitutionally abridges the party’s First Amendment rights.

On January 19, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio determined that at least one individual and one committee plaintiff have standing to bring suit and that they raise a nonfrivolous constitutional challenge to the coordinated party expenditure limits found in the Act. Accordingly, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify the question to the en banc court of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Analysis

The appeals court relied on the Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in FEC v. Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431 (2001) (“Colorado II”) to conclude that the coordinated party expenditure limits do not violate the First Amendment. Plaintiffs argued that the law and facts have changed since 2001, making Colorado II no longer binding on lower courts. However, the court concluded that the “key reality is that the Supreme Court has not overruled the 2001 Colorado decision or the deferential review it applied to these provisions of the Act. In a hierarchical legal system, we must follow that decision and thus must deny the plaintiffs’ First Amendment facial and as applied challenges.” As a result, the court ruled that the Act’s coordinated party expenditure limits do not violate the First Amendment.

Source: FEC Record — September 2024; February 2024; November 2022

Appeals Court (Sixth Circuit) (24-3051)

Court decisions:

• Corrected Opinion (09/05/2024)
• Judgment (09/05/2024)

Related documents:

• Fourth Brief of the Federal Election Commission (05/24/2024)
• Third Brief of Plaintiff-Appellants National Republican Senatorial Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, J.D. Vance, and Steven Chabot (05/03/2024)
• Unopposed Motion of CLC and CREW for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae Supporting FEC (04/11/2024)
• Brief of Amici Curiae CLC and CREW in Support of FEC (04/11/2024)
• Second Brief of the Federal Election Commission (04/04/2024)
• Motion of Ohio and 12 Other States for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants (03/11/2024)
• Brief of Amici Curiae State of Ohio and 12 Other States in Support of Appellants (03/11/2024)
• Motion for Leave to File a Corrected Brief (03/11/2024)
• Corrected Brief of Amicus Curiae Senator Mitch McConnell in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants (03/11/2024)
• Brief of Institute for Free Speech as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants (03/11/2024)
• First Brief of Plaintiff-Appellants National Republican Senatorial Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, J.D. Vance, and Steven Chabot (03/05/2024)

District Court (S.D. Ohio)

Court decisions:

• Opinion and Judgment (09/06/2024)
• Opinion and Order (01/19/2024)
  Appendix (01/19/2024)
• Opinion and Order (05/09/2023)

Related documents:

• Supplemental Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Question to the En Banc Court of Appeals (12/20/2023)
• Defendant Federal Election Commission's Partial Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Question to En Banc Court of Appeals (12/15/2023)
• Plaintiffs' Brief Concerning Proposed Findings of Fact (12/15/2023)
• Defendant Federal Election Commission's Brief in Support of Its Proposed Findings of Fact and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact (12/15/2023)
• Defendant Federal Election Commission's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Question to En Banc Court of Appeals (06/07/2023)
• Defendant Federal Election Commission's Answer (05/23/2023)
• Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Question to the En Banc Court of Appeals (05/17/2023)
• Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Question to the En Banc Court of Appeals (05/17/2023)
• Defendant Federal Election Commission's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or, in the Alternative, Transfer (02/13/2023)
• Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or, in the Alternative, Transfer (01/30/2023)
• Defendant Federal Election Commission's Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or, in the Alternative, Transfer (01/09/2023)
• Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (11/4/2022)