June 03rd, 2025
On June 3, 2025, the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the court) granted motions to dismiss filed by the President and Attorney General and, separately, the FEC and its Commissioners (collectively, defendants).
Background
The Democratic National Committee, DSCC, and DCCC (collectively, plaintiffs) filed suit challenging section 7 of Executive Order 14215 as unlawful as applied to the Commission. This section of the Executive Order states that “the President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees” and prohibits any executive branch employee from “advanc[ing] an interpretation of law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law.” The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) is constitutional and an order enjoining all defendants from applying this section of the Executive Order to the Commission. The President and Attorney General, and separately, the FEC and its Commissioners moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Analysis
Federal courts are confined to live controversies – ones that the plaintiff has standing to bring, that have ripened into concrete disputes, and that have not become moot. The court determined that, as all parties agree that the Act is constitutional, the first count of the plaintiffs’ complaint must be dismissed as “there is no live constitutional question” remaining.
The second count of the plaintiffs’ complaint asks the court to enjoin the application of section 7 of the Executive Order to the FEC or its Commissioners. As the committees do not allege that the President or Attorney General have applied section 7 to the Commission nor do they plausibly allege that the President or Attorney General plan to do so, there is no injury giving rise to a “live controversy” for the court to resolve. Accordingly, the court determined that the second count of the plaintiffs’ complaint must also be dismissed and granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. back...
Background
The Democratic National Committee, DSCC, and DCCC (collectively, plaintiffs) filed suit challenging section 7 of Executive Order 14215 as unlawful as applied to the Commission. This section of the Executive Order states that “the President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees” and prohibits any executive branch employee from “advanc[ing] an interpretation of law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law.” The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) is constitutional and an order enjoining all defendants from applying this section of the Executive Order to the Commission. The President and Attorney General, and separately, the FEC and its Commissioners moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Analysis
Federal courts are confined to live controversies – ones that the plaintiff has standing to bring, that have ripened into concrete disputes, and that have not become moot. The court determined that, as all parties agree that the Act is constitutional, the first count of the plaintiffs’ complaint must be dismissed as “there is no live constitutional question” remaining.
The second count of the plaintiffs’ complaint asks the court to enjoin the application of section 7 of the Executive Order to the FEC or its Commissioners. As the committees do not allege that the President or Attorney General have applied section 7 to the Commission nor do they plausibly allege that the President or Attorney General plan to do so, there is no injury giving rise to a “live controversy” for the court to resolve. Accordingly, the court determined that the second count of the plaintiffs’ complaint must also be dismissed and granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. back...
