Legal Opinion
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Federal Election Commission
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided February 22, 2017No. Civil Action No. 2015-2038PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Re Document Nos.: 19, 20
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Granting Dependant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
The parties agree that the Federal Election Commission had strong grounds to prosecute the Commission on Hope, Growth and Opportunity under the Federal Election Campaign Act, but declined to do so. The parties’ main source of disagreement is the extent to which the FEC can decline to prosecute after receiving a citizen complaint. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington contends that…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Heckler v. ChaneySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Federal Election Commission v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign CommitteeSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Greater Boston Television Corp. v. Federal Communications CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1970
- Beauharnais v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Responsibility v. Fed. Election Comm'nCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Federal Election CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2019
- Campaign Legal Ctr. v. Fed. Election Comm'nCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
- Campaign Legal Center v. Federal Election CommissionDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2018
- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Federal Election CommissionDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2019
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.