La Botz v. Federal Election Commission of Washington, D.C.
61 F. Supp. 3d 21
D.D.C.2014Background
- Plaintiff Dan La Botz, a 2010 Ohio U.S. Senate candidate, alleges the Ohio News Organization (ONO) excluded him from pre-election televised debates without using pre-established objective criteria, violating FECA.
- La Botz filed an FEC administrative complaint (MUR 6383); the FEC initially found "no reason to believe" a violation occurred and dismissed.
- La Botz sued; in La Botz I (D.D.C.), the court remanded, finding the FEC’s initial dismissal lacked substantial evidence regarding whether criteria were pre-existing.
- On remand the FEC reviewed the record, concluded evidence was insufficient to pursue an extensive investigation, and dismissed the matter based on prosecutorial discretion.
- La Botz filed a second suit challenging the dismissal as contrary to law. The FEC moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (standing/mootness) and for failure to state a claim (deference to prosecutorial discretion).
- The district court held La Botz’s suit is moot and that he lacked standing because he relocated to New York and is unlikely to run for Ohio Senate again; alternatively, the FEC’s dismissal was a permissible exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (standing) | La Botz: his exclusion is an Article III injury and he likely will run for federal office again, so a favorable ruling could redress him | FEC: La Botz relocated to New York and is unlikely to run in Ohio again, so any decision cannot redress his injury | Court: No standing — redressability absent because La Botz will not run in Ohio |
| Mootness / "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception | La Botz: electoral dispute fits the exception; he remains likely to run again | FEC: ONO adopted written, pre-existing criteria and La Botz moved away, so neither he nor similarly situated candidates face the same action | Court: Exception inapplicable; case moot because no reasonable expectation dispute will recur for La Botz or similarly situated candidates |
| Validity of FEC dismissal (contrary to law) | La Botz: FEC adopted improper national policies and relied on oral evidence, improperly relieving ONO of burden | FEC: Dismissal was a reasonable exercise of prosecutorial discretion given thin record and resource constraints | Court: Even on the merits, FEC dismissal was within broad prosecutorial discretion and not contrary to law |
| Standard of review for agency non-prosecution | La Botz: challenges to FEC factual/legal statements should be reviewed closely | FEC: agency non-enforcement entitled to deference; court acts in an appellate capacity reviewing lawfulness | Court: Applied deferential standard; dismissal upheld absent clear abuse/arbitrary and capricious conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements and plaintiff's burden)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency prosecutorial discretion in nonenforcement decisions)
- Orloski v. FEC, 795 F.2d 156 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (FEC dismissal review: contrary to law if impermissible interpretation or arbitrary/capricious)
- Nader v. FEC, 725 F.3d 226 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (redressability and standing where future candidacy speculative)
- La Botz v. FEC, 889 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2012) (prior remand: agency decision lacked substantial evidence on pre-existing criteria)