Johnson v. Commission on Presidential Debates
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112627
D.D.C.2016Background
- Libertarian and Green Party organizations and 2012 candidates (Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and related entities) sued the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), RNC, DNC, and individual actors after being excluded from CPD-sponsored 2012 presidential debates.
- Plaintiffs alleged Sherman Act violations (Section 1 conspiracy; Section 2 monopolization), First Amendment violations (free speech and association), and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; they sought injunctive relief, treble damages, dissolution of the Commission, and other relief.
- Central factual allegations: CPD (formed by RNC/DNC) and the major-party campaigns enforce selection criteria (ballot access + 15% polling threshold) via an MOU, which plaintiffs say excludes third-party candidates and entrenches a two‑party duopoly; plaintiffs claim loss of media exposure, funds, and electoral viability.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of Article III standing, antitrust inapplicability to political activity, absence of state action for First Amendment claims, and insufficient specificity for the tort claim.
- The court treated many complaint facts as true for the motion but analyzed standing, antitrust standing, whether political activity is commerce, First Amendment limits (private action/state action), and pleading sufficiency for tortious interference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for antitrust claims | Exclusion from debates caused concrete harms (lost media exposure, donations, votes) traceable to defendants | Injuries are speculative and caused by plaintiffs’ lack of popular support; not fairly traceable to defendants | No Article III standing; antitrust counts dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Antitrust standing / antitrust injury | Debates, elections, and politics are "markets" harmed by defendants’ exclusionary conduct | Sherman Act protects commercial markets; running/holding office and political activity are not trade or commerce | No antitrust standing: plaintiffs failed to allege injury to competition in a commercial market |
| Applicability of Sherman Act to political debate selection | Economic effects (sponsorship fees, ad spending, host revenues) bring debates within antitrust scope | Antitrust governs commerce/business, not quintessential political activity; incidental economic impact is insufficient | Sherman Act does not reach this political conduct; §1 and §2 claims fail on the merits and pleading of a relevant market |
| First Amendment claim (right to access debates) | Debates function as a surrogate public forum; exclusion suppresses third‑party viewpoints | Defendants are private actors; no state action; even state-hosted debates can be nonpublic forums; compelled inclusion would violate defendants’ free‑speech/association rights | First Amendment claims dismissed: no state action alleged and compelled inclusion would raise forced‑speech problems |
| Tortious interference with prospective economic advantage | Defendants intentionally interfered with plaintiffs’ expected relations with debate organizers, sponsors, media | Allegations are conclusory and amount to a mere refusal to deal; lack of specific business expectancies and affirmative acts of interference | Claim dismissed for failure to plead specific, commercially reasonable expectancies or intentional acts |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (Article III standing is an "irreducible constitutional minimum")
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements and burden on plaintiff)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard for antitrust conspiracy allegations)
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477 (1977) (antitrust protects competition, not competitors)
- Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328 (1990) (claimant must allege loss from competition‑reducing aspect of defendant’s conduct)
- Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) (government may not compel private press to publish replies)
- Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) (private organizers have First Amendment right to exclude speakers from expressive events)
- Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, 547 U.S. 47 (2006) (distinguishes inherently expressive conduct from non‑expressive conduct)
- Arkansas Educ. Television Comm’n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 (1998) (state‑sponsored debates can be nonpublic forums; exclusion may be permissible journalistic discretion)
- Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953) (private party conducting primary that functioned as state action violated Fifteenth Amendment)