904 F.3d 1014
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (Crossroads) seeks a stay pending appeal of a district court order vacating 11 C.F.R. § 109.10(e)(1)(vi), which narrows disclosure by independent committees of donors who fund independent expenditures.
- The Federal Election Campaign Act requires independent committees to disclose donors who give over $200 for the purpose of furthering an independent expenditure (52 U.S.C. § 30104(c)(2)(C)) and more broadly to report contributions when independent expenditures exceed $250 in a year (§ 30104(c)(1)).
- The challenged FEC regulation required disclosure only if a contribution was made for the purpose of furthering the specific reported independent expenditure, narrowing the statutory phrasing “an independent expenditure.”
- Plaintiffs (Mezlak and CREW) filed an administrative complaint after press reports about anonymous large donations to support an Ohio Senate race; the FEC deadlocked and plaintiffs sued in district court claiming the regulation conflicts with the statute.
- The district court held the regulation invalid under Chevron step one, vacated it, and stayed vacatur briefly to allow the FEC to issue interim guidance; Crossroads appealed and sought an emergency stay from the D.C. Circuit.
- The D.C. Circuit denied the emergency stay, concluding Crossroads failed to show likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, or that the public interest favored a stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 11 C.F.R. § 109.10(e)(1)(vi) permissibly interprets 52 U.S.C. § 30104(c)(2)(C) and (c)(1) | Crossroads: "an" in statute means the specific reported expenditure; regulation is consistent and longstanding | Mezlak/FEC challengers: regulation narrows the statute improperly; statute plainly requires disclosure of contributions made for the purpose of furthering independent expenditures generally | Court: Regulation conflicts with unambiguous statutory text; Crossroads unlikely to prevail on appeal (Chevron step one fails) |
| Whether Crossroads is likely to succeed on appeal based on legislative history or congressional inaction | Crossroads: legislative history and long-standing practice support the regulation | Court: Text is clear; courts will not use legislative history or congressional inaction to override plain language | Court: No likelihood of success; textual clarity controls |
| Whether Crossroads will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay | Crossroads: chilling of speech and donor expectations, uncertainty before election | Mezlak/public: order only affects reporting, not expenditures; alleged chill speculative; no evidence of threats to donors | Court: Claims are speculative and insufficiently concrete to show irreparable harm |
| Whether the public interest favors a stay | Crossroads: (implicitly) interests in speech and donor privacy | Mezlak/public: disclosure furthers informed voting and transparency; public interest favors disclosure | Court: Public interest and voters’ need for information weigh against a stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay pending appeal standard and factors)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency deference framework)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (campaign finance disclosure rationale)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (speech/disclosure burdens and need for evidence of threats to donors)
- Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (do not resort to legislative history when text is clear)
- SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (disclosure provides electorate information)
- Texas Dep't of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015) (congressional inaction does not alter clear statutory meaning)