Public Citizen v. Federal Election Commission
415 U.S. App. D.C. 381
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Public Citizen sued the FEC under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) after the Commission (3-3 split) dismissed a FECA complaint against Crossroads GPS, which had denied being a political committee.
- Crossroads moved to intervene as a defendant in the district-court challenge to the FEC’s dismissal; the FEC opposed intervention.
- The district court found Crossroads had Article III standing but denied intervention as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2), concluding the FEC could adequately represent Crossroads’ interest in defending the dismissal.
- Crossroads appealed; the D.C. Circuit reviewed standing de novo and intervention issues under the four-factor Rule 24 test.
- The D.C. Circuit held Crossroads has a concrete, cognizable injury (loss of the favorable FEC dismissal would expose it to enforcement) and that the district court erred in finding the FEC could adequately represent Crossroads.
- Court reversed the denial of intervention as of right and remanded, explaining government representation often is inadequate when interests diverge or the government previously opposed the private party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of an intervenor-defendant | Crossroads: losing the FEC dismissal is a concrete, imminent injury because it would remove protection from enforcement and civil exposure | FEC/Public Citizen: any injury is speculative because the FEC might again decline enforcement on remand | Held: Crossroads has Article III standing — loss of a favorable agency order is a concrete injury even if later enforcement outcomes are uncertain |
| Applicability of zone-of-interests test to intervenor-defendants | Crossroads: zone-of-interests should not bar intervention; Rule 24 controls intervention rights | FEC: zone-of-interests (prudential standing) should apply to intervene analysis | Held: post-Lexmark, zone-of-interests is a merits question and is not a separate hurdle to intervene as a defendant under Rule 24 |
| Rule 24(a)(2) — four-factor test (timeliness, interest, impairment, adequacy) | Crossroads: met timeliness, has a direct protectable interest, would be impaired by an adverse judgment, and FEC cannot adequately represent it | FEC: interests align with Crossroads in defending dismissal, so representation is adequate | Held: all factors met; district court erred on adequacy — government often provides inadequate representation for private party intervenors, especially where interests diverge |
| Standard for adequacy of representation | Crossroads: requirement is minimal; movant need only show potential inadequacy, particularly where the government previously opposed it | FEC: similarities in overall defense of the dismissal mean adequacy exists | Held: adequacy is a low bar for the government to meet; here FEC’s disagreements with Crossroads on legal scope, record, and strategy show inadequate representation |
Key Cases Cited
- Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir.) (government often does not adequately represent prospective intervenors)
- FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27 (1981) (judicial review of FEC dismissal is limited to whether dismissal was contrary to law)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (elements of Article III standing: injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. FDIC, 717 F.3d 189 (D.C. Cir.) (standing for intervenor-defendants requires concrete, imminent injury; caution against attenuated harms)
- Military Toxics Project v. EPA, 146 F.3d 948 (D.C. Cir.) (party benefitting from agency action has standing to defend that action)
- Nat’l Conservative Political Action Comm. v. FEC, 470 U.S. 480 (1985) (favorable agency action can bar private suits and confer protection)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014) (zone-of-interests test is a merits inquiry, not jurisdictional)