110 F.4th 1239
11th Cir.2024USCA11 Case: 22-13396 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 1 of 17
[PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13396
____________________
RYAN GRAHAM,
as individual,
LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF GEORGIA, INC.,
a Georgia nonprofit corporation,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF GEORGIA,
GEORGIA GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY
AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMMISSION,
CHAIRMAN OF GEORGIA GOVERNMENT
TRANSPARENCY AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE
COMMISSION,
USCA11 Case: 22-13396 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 2 of 17
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13396
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-03613-MHC
____________________
Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
BRANCH, Circuit Judge:
This appeal presents a constitutional challenge to one of
Georgia’s campaign-finance laws. Section 21-5-34.2 of the Georgia
Code allows a “leadership committee” to accept political
contributions that exceed the limits usually imposed on candidates.
O.C.G.A. § 21-5-34.2. Leadership committees may be formed only
by the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and the nominee of a
political party—but not a political body—for Governor or Lieutenant
Governor, though a nominee may only do so in the year in which
he is nominated. Under Georgia law, the Democratic and
Republican parties are political parties, while the Libertarian Party
is a political body.
The Libertarian Party of Georgia and its nominee for the
office of Lieutenant Governor in the 2022 general election, Ryan
Graham, argue that O.C.G.A. § 21-5-34.2 violates the First
Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
USCA11 Case: 22-13396 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 3 of 17
22-13396 Opinion of the Court 3
Amendment by excluding them from forming a leadership
committee and from accepting unlimited contributions like their
Republican and Democratic counterparts. The district court
denied Graham and the Libertarian Party’s motion for a
preliminary injunction because it concluded they lacked standing
and didn’t satisfy the prerequisites for the issuance of a preliminary
injunction. Graham and the Libertarian Party timely appealed.
After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument,
we conclude that this case is moot. Accordingly, we vacate the
underlying judgment, dismiss the appeal, and remand for the
district court to dismiss the case as moot.
I. Background
Before we lay out the facts of this case, we first explain
certain parts of the Georgia Government Transparency and
Campaign Finance Act (the “Campaign Finance Act”). Under the
Campaign Finance Act, campaign contributions for candidates of
statewide office1 are limited by the following dollar amounts:
$7,600 for primary and general elections, and $4,400 for runoff
elections. O.C.G.A §§ 21-5-41(a), (k). 2 In July of 2021, an
1 Georgia law provides for lower limits for offices that are not statewide,
O.C.G.A § 21-5-41(b), but only statewide offices are at issue in this appeal.
2 O.C.G.A § 21-5-41(a) provides:
(a) No person, corporation, political committee, or political
party shall make, and no candidate or campaign committee
shall receive from any such entity, contributions to any
USCA11 Case: 22-13396 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 4 of 17
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13396
amendment to the Campaign Finance Act (hereinafter “the
Leadership Committee Amendment”) created the concept of
“leadership committees.” Id. § 21-5-34.2. The Leadership
Committee Amendment provides, in relevant part, for the
creation, use, and powers of leadership committees by governors,
lieutenant governors, or candidates of those offices nominated by
political parties (as defined by Georgia law):
(a) As used in this Code section, the term “leadership
committee” means a committee, corporation, or
organization chaired by the Governor, the Lieutenant
Governor, the nominee of a political party for
Governor selected in a primary election in the year in
which he or she is nominated, or the nominee of a
political party for Lieutenant Governor selected in a
candidate for state-wide elected office which in the aggregate
for an election cycle exceed:
(1) Five thousand dollars for a primary election;
(2) Three thousand dollars for a primary run-off election;
(3) Five thousand dollars for a general election; and
(4) Three thousand dollars for a general election runoff.
O.C.G.A § 21-5-41(k) provides that these contribution limits must be “raised
or lowered in increments of $100.00” to adjust for “inflation or deflation” at
“the end of each gubernatorial election cycle[.]” The limits noted above were
in place for the 2022 election. See Contribution Limits, Ga. Gov’t Transparency
& Campaign Fin. Comm’n, https://perma.cc/HG9W-V3X2 (last visited July
23, 2024) (showing limits effective August 2021, adjusted per inflation and
under O.C.G.A. § 21-5-41(k)).
USCA11 Case: 22-13396 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 5 of 17
22-13396 Opinion of the Court 5
primary election in the year in which he or she is
nominated. . . .
(b) A leadership committee may receive
contributions from persons who are members or
supporters of the leadership committee and expend
such funds as permitted by this Code section.
(c) If a person chairing a leadership committee ceases
to hold the office or the status as a nominee of a
political party as described in subsection (a) of this
Code section, such person shall transfer the
remaining assets of the leadership committee, if any,
to another leadership committee within 60 days,
name an eligible person as the new chairperson of the
leadership committee within 60 days, or dispose of
the leadership committee's assets as provided by
Code Section 21-5-33.
(d) A leadership committee may accept contributions
or make expenditures for the purpose of affecting the
outcome of any election or advocating for the
election or defeat of any candidate, may defray
ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in
connection with any candidate’s campaign for
elective office, and may defray ordinary and
necessary expenses incurred in connection with a
public officer’s fulfillment or retention of such office.
(e) . . . . The contribution limits in Code Section 21-5-41
shall not apply to contributions to a leadership committee
or expenditures made by a leadership committee in support
of a candidate or a group of named candidates. . . .
USCA11 Case: 22-13396 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 6 of 17
6 Opinion of the Court 22-13396
(f) A leadership committee shall be a separate legal
entity from a candidate’s campaign committee and
shall not be considered an independent committee.
Id. (emphasis added). At issue in this appeal is Section 21-5-34.2(e),
which provides that a leadership committee is not subject to the
campaign contribution limits imposed on candidates running for
statewide office.3 Id. § 21-5-34.2(e).
Under the Leadership Committee Amendment, leadership
committees may be formed by “the Governor, the Lieutenant
Governor, [and] the nominee of a political party for [those offices]
selected in a primary election[.]” Id. § 21-5-34.2(a) (emphasis
added). Georgia law defines a political party as any political
organization that nominated a candidate in the preceding
gubernatorial or presidential elections who “polled at least 20
percent of the total vote cast” in the state or nation, respectively.
3 The Attorney General and the Georgia Government Transparency and
Campaign Finance Commission (“the Commission”) enforce the Campaign
Finance Act. O.C.G.A. § 21-5-6(b)(14).
USCA11 Case: 22-13396 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 7 of 17
22-13396 Opinion of the Court 7
Id. § 21-2-2(25). 4 Any political organization that does not meet the
definition of a political party is a political body. Id. § 21-2-2(23). 5
We now turn to the facts of this case. Graham ran for
Lieutenant Governor in 2022 as the Libertarian Party’s nominee.
The Libertarian Party had not polled at least 20 percent of the total
votes cast in the previous elections and was thus considered a
political body, not a political party. 6 Because the Libertarian Party
4 O.C.G.A. § 21-2-2(25) provides:
“Political party” or “party” means any political organization
which at the preceding:
(A) Gubernatorial election nominated a candidate for
Governor and whose candidate for Governor at such
election polled at least 20 percent of the total vote cast in
the state for Governor; or
(B) Presidential election nominated a candidate for
President of the United States and whose candidates for
presidential electors at such election polled at least 20
percent of the total vote cast in the nation for that office.
5 O.C.G.A. § 21-2-2(23) provides that a “political body” is “any political
organization other than a political party.”
6 In the 2020 presidential election, the Libertarian Party candidate gained
approximately 1.2 percent of the vote. Fed. Elections Comm’n, Federal
Elections 2020: Election Results for the U.S. President, the U.S. Senate and the
U.S. House of Representatives 5 (Eileen J. Leamon et al. eds., 2022),
https://perma.cc/6GVN-PSKX.
In Georgia’s 2018 gubernatorial election, the Libertarian Party candidate
garnered less than 1 percent of the vote. November 6, 2018: General Election, Ga.
Sec’y of State, https://perma.cc/EUL7-49G2 (last updated Nov. 17, 2018).
USCA11 Case: 22-13396 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 8 of 17
8 Opinion of the Court 22-13396
was not a political party, Graham could not form a leadership
committee. 7 Without a leadership committee, Graham remained
subject to the contribution limits under the Campaign Finance Act.
On September 8, 2022, Graham and the Libertarian Party
sued the Attorney General and the Commission, and they later
added the Chair of the Commission (together, “Appellees”).
Graham and the Libertarian Party argued that O.C.G.A. § 21-5-
34.2—the Leadership Committee Amendment to the Campaign
Finance Act—violated free speech and equal protection rights
because it “allow[ed] the Republican and Democratic nominees for
Lieutenant Governor to raise funds in unlimited amounts while
Graham remain[ed] subject to the $7,600 limit.” 8 Graham and the
Libertarian Party sought “declaratory and injunctive relief
prohibiting state officials from enforcing O.C.G.A. § 21-5-34.2 in a
manner that violates [their] constitutional rights.”
Beyond setting forth the relevant Georgia law, Graham and
the Libertarian Party’s nine-page complaint presented only these
We take judicial notice of these facts as they are “agency record[s].” United
States v. Howard, 28 F.4th 180 , 186 n.2 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Bramwell
v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 165 (2022).
7 Run for Office in Georgia, Libertarian Party of Ga., https://perma.cc/8PEU-
TJNN (last visited July 23, 2023).
8 While not fully fleshed out in the complaint, Graham and the Libertarian
Party’s argument appears to be that the Leadership Committee Amendment
threatens prosecution for participating in protected political activity (in
violation of the First Amendment) and that he is denied equal treatment under
the Campaign Finance Act (in violation of the Equal Protection Clause).
USCA11 Case: 22-13396 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 9 of 17
22-13396 Opinion of the Court 9
facts relating to how the Leadership Committee Amendment
affected them in the 2022 election and would affect future elections
in Georgia:
6. Ryan Graham . . . . is the nominee of the
Libertarian Party of Georgia for the office of
Lieutenant Governor in the 2022 general
election. . . . Graham wants to chair a leadership
committee for the purpose of supporting Libertarian
candidates for public office, including his own
candidacy for Lieutenant Governor. He plans to run
again as a Libertarian candidate for statewide public
office in future elections.
....
19. On June 17, 2022, the Republican nominee for
Lieutenant Governor, Burt Jones, registered a
leadership committee called the “WBJ Leadership
Committee, Inc.”[ 9]
20. On July 8, 2022, the WBJ Leadership Committee
filed a campaign contribution disclosure form
showing that it has raised at least $60,000 in
contributions that exceed the limits with which
Graham and his campaign committee must comply.
9 Although not mentioned in the complaint, we note that Charlie Bailey ran
in the 2022 election for Lieutenant Governor as the Democratic Party
nominee. November 8, 2022: General/Special Election, Ga. Sec’y of State,
https://perma.cc/NAW5-ETB3 (last updated Nov. 21, 2022). In their
supplemental briefing on appeal, Graham and the Libertarian Party
acknowledge that Bailey “maintain[s] [an] active leadership committee[.]”
USCA11 Case: 22-13396 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 10 of 17
10 Opinion of the Court 22-13396
The Libertarian Party did not say what it intends to do in future
elections in Georgia.
Graham and the Libertarian Party then sought a preliminary
injunction that would either (1) “prohibit the defendants from
limiting leadership committees to the nominees of ‘political
parties,’” or (2) “prohibit the defendants from enforcing the
[Leadership Committee Amendment] in its entirety.”
On October 6, 2022, the district court found that Graham
and the Libertarian Party lacked standing to seek injunctive relief.
Although the court found that they alleged an injury in fact (in the
form of unequal treatment under the Campaign Finance Act), it
concluded that the injury was neither traceable to the defendants
nor redressable by the injunctive relief requested. Analyzing
traceability, the district court determined that Graham and the
Libertarian challenged the wrong statute because Section 21-5-41,
not the Leadership Committee Amendment, established the
campaign contribution limits. The court also noted that Graham
and the Libertarian Party “fail[ed] to allege that [Appellees] have
instituted or threatened to institute any action to enforce the
[Leadership Committee Amendment] against [them].” Analyzing
redressability, the court determined that neither form of injunctive
relief sought would redress the injury because Appellees do not
determine who forms a leadership committee. Furthermore, the
court concluded that the requested relief would require the district
court improperly to rewrite the Leadership Committee
Amendment to allow all political bodies to form leadership
USCA11 Case: 22-13396 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 11 of 17
22-13396 Opinion of the Court 11
committees. And, the district court added, even if Graham and the
Libertarian Party could establish traceability and redressability
(and thus standing), they “[could not] satisfy all of the prerequisites
for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.” So the district court
denied the motion for preliminary injunction.
This appeal was filed the same day.
Then, on November 8, 2022, Graham lost the election for
Lieutenant Governor.10
II. Standard of Review
“[B]ecause the question of mootness is jurisdictional in
nature, it may be raised by the court sua sponte, regardless of
whether the district court considered it[.]” Nat’l Advert. Co. v. City
of Miami, 402 F.3d 1329 , 1331–32 (11th Cir. 2005).
III. Discussion
Graham and the Libertarian Party argue that the Leadership
Committee Amendment to the Campaign Finance Act, which
prohibited Graham but not Jones from forming a leadership
committee and accepting campaign contributions that exceeded
the statutory limit, violates the First Amendment and the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But the only
allegations in the complaint relate to the 2022 election for
10 November 8, 2022: General/Special Election, Ga. Sec’y of State,
https://perma.cc/NAW5-ETB3 (last updated Nov. 21, 2022).
USCA11 Case: 22-13396 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 12 of 17
12 Opinion of the Court 22-13396
Lieutenant Governor, which has passed. This case is therefore
moot.11
Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to
deciding “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2.
From the case-or-controversy limitation derives the doctrine of
mootness “because an action that is moot cannot be characterized
as an active case or controversy.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d
1330, 1335 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotations omitted). Put simply, “we
cannot entertain [an] appeal unless an actual dispute continues to
exist between the parties.” Bourgeois v. Peters, 387 F.3d 1303 , 1307–
08 (11th Cir. 2004).
“An issue is moot when it no longer presents a live
controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful
relief.” Wood v. Raffensperger, 981 F.3d 1307 , 1316 (11th Cir. 2020).
“If events that occur subsequent to the filing of a lawsuit or an
appeal deprive the court of the ability to afford the plaintiff or
appellant meaningful relief, then the case becomes moot and must
be dismissed.” De La Teja v. United States, 321 F.3d 1357 , 1362 (11th
Cir. 2003) (quotations omitted).
The allegations in Graham and the Libertarian Party’s
complaint focuses only on Graham’s 2022 campaign against Jones.
That campaign ended on November 8, 2022, with the election for
11 On appeal and in the district court below, the parties focused on standing.
We need not reach the issue of standing because we conclude the dispute is
moot.
USCA11 Case: 22-13396 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 13 of 17
22-13396 Opinion of the Court 13
Lieutenant Governor, which Graham lost. Because the issue of the
2022 campaign “no longer presents a live controversy” and we
cannot provide meaningful relief as it pertains to the 2022 election,
the issue is moot. Wood, 981 F.3d at 1316 ; De La Teja, 321 F.3d at
1362.
Graham and the Libertarian Party resist our conclusion on
mootness for two reasons. First, they argue that injunctive relief
“would still be meaningful to Graham and the [Libertarian] party.”
Discussing Graham specifically, they argue that injunctive relief
“would allow him, like his Democratic counterparts, to raise
unlimited funds for certain limited purposes.” They point to
O.C.G.A. § 21-5-34.2(c), which allows the chair of a leadership
committee who “ceases to hold . . . the status as a nominee of a
political party” 12 to do one of three things, including “dispose of the
leadership committee’s assets as provided by Code Section 21-5-
33.” 13 Section 21-5-33(b)(1)(E) of the Georgia Code, in turn,
provides that contributions received by a candidate’s campaign
committee may be used “[f]or repayment of any prior campaign
obligations incurred as a candidate[.]” O.C.G.A. § 21-5-33(b)(1)(E).
So Graham and the Libertarian Party seem to be arguing that
Graham’s ability to form a leadership committee would allow him
12 O.C.G.A. § 21-2-134 mentions death, disqualification, and withdrawal as
ways for a person to no longer hold the status as a party’s nominee. Graham
and the Libertarian Party say that they “assume[] that a person ceases to be a
party’s nominee . . . the moment that the election becomes final.” To
evaluate their argument, we take their assumption as correct.
13 O.C.G.A. § 21-5-33 details the legal uses of candidate contributions.
USCA11 Case: 22-13396 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 14 of 17
14 Opinion of the Court 22-13396
to use leadership committee funds to pay his campaign debts. But,
as already discussed, we cannot provide injunctive relief that
reaches back to Graham’s funds and campaign debts from the 2022
election, which is over. Whatever debts remain, Graham concedes
he is no longer the Libertarian Party’s nominee, see footnote 12—
under the statute, he is no longer entitled to chair a leadership
committee. See O.C.G.A. § 21-5-34.2(a). So this argument
regarding injunctive relief does not save Graham’s case from
mootness.
Nor would such injunctive relief be meaningful for the
Libertarian Party. Graham and the Libertarian Party assert that
the Libertarian Party “needs to know now whether its candidates
for Governor and Lieutenant Governor in 2026 will compete on a
level or unlevel playing field” and whether funds can be raised
“from large-dollar donors.” But even assuming, as they argue, that
“the current campaign-finance rules affect candidate recruitment
and fundraising plans for future elections,” their complaint failed
to allege anything related to the Libertarian Party’s future
campaigns. We cannot merely rely, as Graham and the Libertarian
Party urge in their briefing, on the fact that the Libertarian Party
has run candidates in every election for Governor or Lieutenant
Governor since 1990. Without any concrete allegations about the
Libertarian Party’s intentions for future elections in the complaint
itself, the case as presented to us fails to present a “live controversy
with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.” Wood,
981 F.3d at 1316 .
USCA11 Case: 22-13396 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 15 of 17
22-13396 Opinion of the Court 15
Switching gears, and assuming this case is otherwise moot,
Graham and the Libertarian Party argue that this appeal “falls
under an exception to the mootness doctrine for cases that are
capable of repetition yet evading review.” Their argument fails.
“Although there is an exception to the mootness doctrine when the
action being challenged by the lawsuit is capable of being repeated
and evading review, this exception is narrow, and applies only in
exceptional situations.” Al Najjar, 273 F.3d at 1336 (emphasis in
original) (quotations and citations omitted). This exception
“applies where (1) there [is] a reasonable expectation or a
demonstrated probability that the same controversy will recur
involving the same complaining party, and (2) the challenged
action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its
cessation or expiration.” United States v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 778
F.3d 1223, 1229 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotations omitted).
Discussing the first prong of the exception, Graham and the
Libertarian Party argue that “there is a reasonable expectation that
[they] will be subject to the same action in the future[.]” They
argue that Graham alleged his intent to run again for statewide
election as a nominee of the Libertarian Party and that there is a
“reasonable expectation that the Libertarian Party, which has run
a candidate for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, or both, in every
election since 1990 will do so again[.]” We have held that, to satisfy
the first prong, “there must be some reasonable, non-speculative
expectation that the allegedly unlawful action” will recur. Health
Freedom Def. Fund v. President of United States, 71 F.4th 888 , 893 (11th
Cir. 2023). “The threat of future injury may not be conjectural or
USCA11 Case: 22-13396 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 16 of 17
16 Opinion of the Court 22-13396
hypothetical.” Bourgeois, 387 F.3d at 1309 (quotations omitted).
Graham and the Libertarian Party have not satisfied this showing.
They do not contend that Graham will run and be nominated as a
Libertarian Party candidate for one of the two offices that would
allow him to form a leadership committee—Governor or
Lieutenant Governor. Rather, their complaint merely says that
Graham “plans to run again as a Libertarian candidate for statewide
public office in future elections.” 14 Thus, “the possibility of a
recurrence is purely theoretical,” Wood, 981 F.3d at 1318 , and
Graham and the Libertarian party fail to meet the first prong of the
mootness exception.
Because Graham and the Libertarian Party fail to meet the
first prong of the mootness exception, we need not address
whether they meet the second prong. Graham and the Libertarian
Party’s case does not fall under the mootness exception for cases
that are “capable of repetition yet evading review.” Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t
of Corr., 778 F.3d at 1229 .
IV. Conclusion
Because this case became moot on November 8, 2022, we
vacate the underlying judgment, dismiss the appeal, and remand
14 Nor does the Libertarian Party’s intent to nominate candidates for qualifying
offices in the future keep this case alive—the Libertarian Party is not entitled
to chair a leadership committee in its own right. Only nominees and office
holders may do so. See O.C.G.A. § 21-5-34.2(a).
USCA11 Case: 22-13396 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 17 of 17
22-13396 Opinion of the Court 17
for the district court to dismiss the case as moot. United States v.
Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 , 39 (1950).
VACATED, DISMISSED, and REMANDED.