Doe v. Fed. Election Comm'n
302 F. Supp. 3d 160
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- FEC investigated MUR 6920 concerning a $1.7M contribution; OGC recommended enforcement against certain parties but the Commission declined to find reason to believe against two unnamed plaintiffs and voted to pursue conciliation with other respondents.
- The Commission later entered conciliation agreements with Government Integrity, American Conservative Union, Now or Never PAC, and James C. Thomas III, securing a $350,000 penalty and closing MUR 6920.
- CREW requested the investigative file; the FEC adopted a revised disclosure policy (2016) and notified CREW on Nov. 3, 2017 that documents would be placed on the public record within 30 days.
- Plaintiffs (John Doe 1 and a trust John Doe 2) objected to publication of their identities; they sued and sought emergency relief on Dec. 15, 2017; the FEC agreed to redact names temporarily; the FEC then published a redacted investigative file under court supervision.
- Plaintiffs argued disclosure violated FECA confidentiality provisions, FOIA privacy exemptions, and the First Amendment; the court evaluated statutory interpretation (Chevron), the FEC disclosure policy, and constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FECA § 30109(a)(4)(B)(i)/(ii) bars or requires disclosure of plaintiffs' identities | §30109(a)(4)(B)(i) bars disclosure of information from conciliation attempts; (a)(4)(B)(ii) requires disclosure only when Commission makes a finding of no violation | (a)(4)(B)(i) protects only conciliation-process materials; (a)(4)(B)(ii) does not compel disclosure here but the FEC policy permits release of documents integral to decisionmaking | (a)(4)(B) neither categorically bars nor mandates disclosure; §30109(a)(4)(B) does not resolve the dispute conclusively |
| Whether FECA § 30109(a)(12)(A) prohibits disclosure of closed-investigation files | §30109(a)(12)(A) forbids public disclosure of any notification or investigation without consent, including closed investigations | Statute is ambiguous as to closed cases; FEC's revised policy reasonably construes the provision to allow disclosure of certain materials after case closure | Court follows D.C. Circuit precedent: provision is ambiguous; agency interpretation is subject to Chevron step two |
| Whether FEC's disclosure policy, as applied, violates the First Amendment | Disclosure will chill anonymous contributions and associational/expressive rights; AFL-CIO controlling | Disclosure here is limited, tailored, and relates to identities central to Commission decisionmaking; no showing of likely threats/harassment; Citizens United supports disclosure interests | Disclosure does not raise AFL-CIO-type First Amendment concerns; no as-applied violation shown |
| Whether the agency's application of its disclosure policy is arbitrary or violates FOIA privacy protections | Release invades privacy under FOIA Exemption 7(C) and plaintiffs were not respondents/targets so disclosure is unreasonable | John Doe 2 is a trust (no personal privacy under FOIA); plaintiffs were integral to a narrow investigation and the policy is a reasonable exercise of discretion | Application of the FEC policy was reasonable; privacy interests are insubstantial and do not outweigh public interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (agency deference framework)
- AFL-CIO v. FEC, 333 F.3d 168 (D.C. Cir.) (agency disclosure policy invalidated for inadequate First Amendment tailoring)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (disclosure requirements upheld; as-applied relief available when harassment likely)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (disclosure can burden but survive exacting scrutiny)
- FCC v. AT&T Inc., 562 U.S. 397 (corporations/trusts do not have FOIA Exemption 7(C) personal privacy)
- Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (scope of APA review)