FEC v. Club for Growth, Inc.
On October 10, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied Club for Growth, Inc.’s (the Club’s) motion for the court to certify its June 5, 2006, decision for interlocutory appeal.
Background
In response to a complaint filed by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the FEC found reason to believe and opened an administrative investigation of the Club in 2003 for failure to register with the FEC as a political committee. Following the Commission’s vote finding probable cause to believe and unsuccessful conciliation efforts, the FEC filed an enforcement lawsuit in the district court. See November 2005 Record.
The Club moved to dismiss the complaint based on several alleged procedural violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act). On June 5, 2006, the court denied the Club’s motion to dismiss. See August 2006 Record.
Analysis
The Club asked the court to certify its June 5, 2006, decision for an interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal allows an appellate court to review a lower court’s decision prior to the final judgment in the case. Interlocutory appeals are rare, in part because the moving party, in this case the Club, has the burden to show exceptional circumstances that justify the expedited process. The court held that the Club failed to do so.
One requirement for granting certification for an interlocutory appeal is that there must be a substantial basis for a difference of opinion about the ruling. While the Club disagreed with the court’s application of a previous case, FEC v. Legi-Tech., Inc., 75 F.3d 704 (D.C. Cir. 1996), to the circumstances, the Club did not cite any case law to contradict the court’s decision. The court stated that the June 5, 2006, decision was not based on “novel and untested legal theories.” Instead, the decision was based on the legal doctrine of harmless error, deference to the FEC, the plain language of the Act and settled principles of law regarding agency ratification actions. Since the Club did not show a substantial ground for difference of opinion, the court denied the Club’s motion to certify the decision for an interlocutory appeal.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, CV05-1851 (RMU).