No. 19-484

John Doe 1, et al. v. Federal Election Commission

Lower Court: District of Columbia
Docketed: 2019-10-15
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Relisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-enforcement confidential-investigation constitutional-avoidance disclosure disclosure-limitations federal-election-campaign-act federal-election-commission first-amendment rulemaking-power statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw FirstAmendment Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-03-20 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the FEC may disclose records of an investigation it declined to pursue

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED | In recognition of the highly sensitive First Amendment realm in which it operates, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) imposes strict limits , on the disclosure of administrative enforcement proceedings conducted by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The FEC is expressly prohibited from disclosing “[a]ny ... investigation” it conducts, or any information obtained in the course of attempting : to negotiate a resolution to an investigation without . the permission of the target, subject to the narrow exceptions for any “conciliation agreement” with a “respondent” and any “determination that a person has not violated” a federal election law. 52 U.S.C. §30109(a)(12), (a)(4)(B)(i)-(ii). , ; Petitioners are a trust and trustee whose confidential election-related actions the FEC staff briefly investigated in the course of an investigation | into four other entities. The FEC neither reached a : . conciliation agreement with petitioners nor reached a definitive no-violation determination with respect to | them. Instead, three of the five voting commissioners voted not to pursue the investigation further given the novelty of the liability theory. Nonetheless, the Commission now seeks to disclose petitioners’ identities and link them to highly inflammatory : accusations by the two commissioners who were | outvoted, even though those accusations were never pursued, let alone found warranted. The question presented is: Whether, notwithstanding FECA’s express bar on prohibiting the disclosure of any investigation, and its , careful constraints on the FEC’s disclosure powers, ii the FEC may invoke its general rulemaking power to disclose records, including confidential identities, of an investigation that it ultimately declined to pursue. iii ; .

Docket Entries

2020-03-23
Petition DENIED.
2020-03-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020.
2020-03-04
Reply of petitioners John Doe 1, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2020-02-14
Brief of respondent Federal Election Commission in opposition filed.
2020-01-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 14, 2020.
2020-01-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 15, 2020 to February 14, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-12-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 15, 2020.
2019-12-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 16, 2019 to January 15, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-11-15
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 16, 2019.
2019-11-14
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 14, 2019 to December 16, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-10-15
Motion (19M54) for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record Granted.
2019-09-25
MOTION (19M54) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.
2019-09-16
Motion (19M54) for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record filed.
2019-09-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 14, 2019)

Attorneys

Federal Election Commission
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
John Doe 1, et al.
Paul D. ClementKirkland & Ellis LLP, Petitioner
Paul D. ClementKirkland & Ellis LLP, Petitioner