Court grants dismissal in DCCC v. FEC (24-2935)

On September 3, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the FEC’s and Intervenor-Defendant National Republican Senatorial Committee's (NRSC) motions to dismiss and denied the DCCC’s motion for summary judgment.

Background

On October 17, 2024, the DCCC (plaintiff) filed suit seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the Commission for alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. The motion sought to vacate a Final Closeout Letter issued by the Commission on October 10, 2024, to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). The letter stated that the FEC was unable to render an advisory opinion regarding proposed television advertisements to be run by joint fundraising committees that primarily advocate a candidate’s election but also contain a brief fundraising solicitation.

On November 1, 2024, the court denied the DCCC's request to consolidate its motion for a preliminary injunction with trial on the merits and denied the DCCC's motion for preliminary injunction.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in NRSC v. FEC on June 30, 2026, in which the Supreme Court struck down the Federal Election Campaign Act’s (FECA) limits on political parties’ coordinated expenditures, the court requested supplemental briefing asking whether plaintiff’s claim was now moot. In supplemental briefing, plaintiff shifted its focus to NRSC’s failure to file disclosure reports for these ads as coordinated party expenditures. The DCCC argued that had the Commission answered the DSCC’s advisory opinion request in the manner required, the opinion would have established that the ads qualified as coordinated expenditures and thus required disclosure.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint asked the court to vacate the October 10 closeout letter and issue a declaratory judgment answering the question of whether advertisements like the ones at issue are subject to FECA’s reporting requirements for coordinated party expenditures, rather than those governing joint fundraising communications.

Analysis

The court concluded that the plaintiff had not established an informational injury that is traceable to the Commission’s failure to issue an advisory opinion on a question that is now moot.

The court explained that the required causal connection between an agency action and an information injury is demonstrated by either an affirmative action refusing disclosure or authorizing non-disclosure. The court then stated: “A non-decision on a request for an advisory opinion that made no mention of disclosure requirements and that, instead, sought advice only about contribution limits, cannot be said to have caused an informational injury for purposes of Article III, even if a decision by the agency resolving the advisory opinion request might have included relevant reasoning.” As a result, the DCCC lacked standing, and the court granted the FEC’s and NRSC’s motions to dismiss.

Resources

• DCCC v. FEC (24-2935) litigation page