skip navigation
Here's how you know US flag signifying that this is a United States Federal Government website

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Dot gov

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

SSL

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Federal Election Commission | United States of America
  • FEC Record: Litigation

FEC v. Club for Growth, Inc.

November 1, 2006

On October 10, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied Club for Growth, Inc.’s (the Club’s) motion for the court to certify its June 5, 2006, decision for interlocutory appeal.

Background

In response to a complaint filed by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the FEC found reason to believe and opened an administrative investigation of the Club in 2003 for failure to register with the FEC as a political committee. Following the Commission’s vote finding probable cause to believe and unsuccessful conciliation efforts, the FEC filed an enforcement lawsuit in the district court. See November 2005 Record.

The Club moved to dismiss the complaint based on several alleged procedural violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act). On June 5, 2006, the court denied the Club’s motion to dismiss. See August 2006 Record.

Analysis

The Club asked the court to certify its June 5, 2006, decision for an interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal allows an appellate court to review a lower court’s decision prior to the final judgment in the case. Interlocutory appeals are rare, in part because the moving party, in this case the Club, has the burden to show exceptional circumstances that justify the expedited process. The court held that the Club failed to do so.

One requirement for granting certification for an interlocutory appeal is that there must be a substantial basis for a difference of opinion about the ruling. While the Club disagreed with the court’s application of a previous case, FEC v. Legi-Tech., Inc., 75 F.3d 704 (D.C. Cir. 1996), to the circumstances, the Club did not cite any case law to contradict the court’s decision. The court stated that the June 5, 2006, decision was not based on “novel and untested legal theories.” Instead, the decision was based on the legal doctrine of harmless error, deference to the FEC, the plain language of the Act and settled principles of law regarding agency ratification actions. Since the Club did not show a substantial ground for difference of opinion, the court denied the Club’s motion to certify the decision for an interlocutory appeal.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, CV05-1851 (RMU).

  • Author 
    • Meredith Metzler

Read next:

Campaign guides available

Related:

Explore campaign finance data »

This information is not intended to replace the law or to change its meaning, nor does this information create or confer any rights for or on any person or bind the Federal Election Commission or the public.

The reader is encouraged also to consult the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), Commission regulations (Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations), Commission advisory opinions and applicable court decisions.