Appeals court dismisses appeal as impermissible in Giffords v. FEC (25-5188)

On September 4, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the court) dismissed the National Rifle Association of America’s and the National Rifle Association of America Political Victory Fund’s (appellants) appeal of the memorandum opinion in Giffords v. FEC. The appellants sought relief from the district court’s orders and judgment pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4).

Background

On April 24, 2019, Giffords (plaintiff), a 501(c)(4) organization founded and led by former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (district court) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the FEC for an alleged failure to timely act on four administrative complaints filed by plaintiff in 2018. The court concluded that the facts of the case were not in dispute and granted summary judgment on September 30, 2021.

In 2024 appellants filed a rule 60(b)(4) motion seeking relief from the orders and judgment that enabled plaintiff to file suit. The district court dismissed the motion for lack of standing.

Analysis

The court noted that it is a “well settled” rule that “only parties to a lawsuit, or those that properly become parties, may appeal an adverse judgment” (quoting Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304). The court explained that “the mere fact that an order adversely affects a nonparty’s interests” is insufficient to warrant its designation as a “party.”

The court stated that the appellants are a nonparty, and that as it has repeatedly held, “a person who was not a party to the record in the District court and who made no effort to become a party there” cannot bring the case into the appeals court simply by noting an appeal. Accordingly, without reaching the merits, the court dismissed the appeal as impermissible under its binding precedent.

Resources

• Giffords v. FEC (19-1192 / 25-5188) litigation page