Challenging the FEC’s Delay in Enforcing the Law Against the GEO Group — CLC v. FEC (GEO Group Contractor Contribution)

At a Glance

This case is a challenge to the FEC’s delay in enforcing federal campaign finance law against GEO Group, one of America’s largest private prison companies, which illegally made $225,000 in contributions to a super PAC supporting then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

In August 2016, the Obama administration announced that it would be phasing out federal private prison contracts like those held by GEO. The announcement sent GEO’s stocks tumbling. The next day, GEO contributed $100,000 to the pro-Trump super PAC Rebuilding America Now, and it made another $125,000 contribution just one week before the election. At the time, Mike Pence was telling donors that giving to the super PAC was “one of the best ways to stop Hillary Clinton and help elect Donald Trump our next president!” After Trump won, GEO gave $250,000 to the Trump Inaugural Committee.

GEO did not have to wait long to see its investment start to pay off. On Feb. 23, 2017, during his second full week on the job, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a one-paragraph memo reversing the Obama administration’s private prison phase-out, instead ordering officials to continue using for-profit facilities for federal inmates.

In April 2017, the Trump Administration awarded GEO a $110 million, 10-year federal contract to build and administer a new 1,000-bed immigration detention center in Texas. GEO expects $44 million a year in revenue from the facility. GEO also has enjoyed a soaring stock price; its stock shot up 21 percent the day after Trump won, and has continued to grow since then.

CLC filed an FEC complaint, which alleges that the contributions — made through a wholly-owned subsidiary, GEO Corrections Holdings, Inc. — violated the ban on federal contractors giving money in federal elections. This law has been in place for 75 years to protect the integrity of the contracting process.

CLC filed this case against the FEC on January 10, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after waiting more than a year for the FEC to resolve this complaint. CLC hopes the lawsuit will compel the FEC to act. 

There is recent precedent for the FEC taking action against government contractors for giving to super PACs. In September 2017, the FEC responded to a CLC complaint and found that the Massachusetts-based Suffolk Construction Company violated campaign finance law by making two $100,000 donations to a Hillary Clinton-affiliated super PAC in 2015. That company agreed to pay a $34,000 fine.

The reason that federal contractors have been barred from making contributions for the past 75 years is to prevent pay-to-play in the contracting process. Public officials are supposed to make contracting decisions based on what is best for the public, not based on who spent the most money getting them elected. GEO Group’s illegal donations have the appearance of a pay-to-play: since Trump was elected with GEO’s backing, the company has reaped enormous political and financial benefits, including a new $110 million taxpayer-funded contract.

The FEC is critical to the enforcement of the contractor contribution ban and in preventing pay-to-play politics. It is incumbent upon the FEC to enforce the longstanding federal contribution ban and take action against GEO Group to deter future violations. Without the contractor ban, the government contracting process becomes an obvious way for officials to reward friends and political donors.

In a separate but related case, CLC filed a lawsuit on June 15, 2017 seeking to compel the Department of Justice (DOJ) to disclose requested records that would gather information about how DOJ reached its conclusion to rescind official policy to phase-out the use of private prisons in the administration’s contracting process. Almost nine months later, the public still has not seen any documents that show how DOJ reached its decision to change course on its private prison policy.

Plaintiffs

Campaign Legal Center

Defendant

Federal Election Commission

Associated Cases & Actions

Exposing Pay-to-Play Scheme Enacted by the GEO Group

Doe v. FEC

At a Glance

Doe v. FEC is a case about a mystery donor's attempt to maintain secrecy around a $1.7 million donation to a super PAC whose spending was meant to influence the 2012 election. 

Status
Closed
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

Doe v. FEC is a case about a mystery donor's attempt to maintain secrecy around a $1.7 million donation to a super PAC whose spending was meant to influence the 2012 election. The nonprofit group Citizens for Reponsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) brought the original complaint against the super PAC, called Now or Never PAC, in February 2015 alleging that an unknown person made a contribution to Now or Never, violating the prohibition on contributions made in the name of another person.



CLC filed a motion to intervene in support of CREW's quest for transparency on January 3, 2018.



On March 23, 2018, the U.S. District Court issued an opinion that upheld the right of the Federal Election Commission to uphold its own disclosure policy and give the public the right to know the names of donors.



Importance of Case



Disclosure is critical because voters deserve to know the names of donors that are spending millions of dollars to influence their vote. Transparency is the foundation of an open democracy. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, the FEC must be permitted to keep extensive recordkeeping and disclosure requirements of campaign contributions in order to remedy pay-to-play politics.

Plaintiffs

John Doe

Defendant

Federal Election Commission

Protecting Law Firms From Unconstitutional Political Retaliation (Perkins Coie LLP, et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al.)

At a Glance

President Trump has attempted to retaliate against certain large national law firms that provided legal advocacy to his perceived political opponents and disfavored election cases. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) has filed an amicus brief urging the courts to protect voting rights and election lawyers from unlawful discrimination by the Trump administration. 

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
The Rule of Law
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

Shortly after being sworn into office, President Donald Trump issued multiple executive orders (EOs) targeting major national law firms, several of which engage in election law and voting rights cases. The EOs directed all employees of these firms to be stripped of security clearances and denied access to federal buildings, as well as ordering federal agencies to halt any ongoing contracted work.  

Although several law firms bowed to the pressure and cut deals with the administration to avoid sanctions, four law firms sued, arguing that the EOs violated the First Amendment and their clients’ right to counsel.

It is clear that a major reason why these four firms are being targeted by the Trump administration is their legal representation or association with the president’s electoral and partisan opponents and their advocacy for voting rights. Several of these firms litigated multiple election-related lawsuits following the 2020 presidential election, including one firm which represented an opposing party in 60+ lawsuits in which President Trump or his allies attempted to overturn the results.  

Despite the claims of the government, the intention of these EOs was clearly not to protect the administration from a viable security threat — it is a blatant attempt to punish, intimidate and suppress the legal advocacy of anyone working against the current president’s political interests.  

CLC’s brief highlights how these EOs attempt to weaponize presidential power to retaliate against any law firm willing to advance voting rights or to represent the president’s political or electoral opponents. By doing so, the Trump administration unlawfully threatens these firms’ First Amendment right to bring these cases forward.  

What’s at Stake?

This attempt to suppress the free speech of legal advocates comes at the same time the administration actively seeks to exert control over our federal elections and usurp power constitutionally given to the states and Congress.  

This context illustrates why these EOs are not only a violation of the First Amendment but also a danger to our democracy; as CLC argues in our brief, voters need access to legal resources to both protect their individual rights and safeguard electoral processes like voter registration, redistricting and access to the ballot. Sanctioning attorneys for litigating against threats to the electoral process is just another way the president is attempting to limit the resources available to Americans seeking legal recourse.  

Election lawyers play a critical role in protecting the health of our democracy. A legal system that provides representation and pathways to justice to all Americans — regardless of political identity — is a strength, not a weakness, of our democracy. The courts must uphold the constitutional right for any law firm to choose who they represent and advance meaningful challenges to attempts by the president to unlawfully manipulate our elections.  

Advocates Ask to Intervene in Federal Lawsuit Over Voter Data

Date
Body

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Community advocates are asking a federal court to allow them to intervene in a lawsuit brought by the Trump administration against West Virginia for refusing to hand over sensitive data on voters in the state.

On Thursday, West Virginia Citizen Action Group (CAG) filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in the lawsuit brought by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice against West Virginia. CAG, which represents thousands of voters across the state whose data may be compromised depending on the outcome of this litigation, is represented by attorneys from Campaign Legal Center, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia.

State elections officials have twice refused requests from the administration for private voter information such dates of birth, addresses, driver’s license numbers and/or the last four digits of social security numbers. The DOJ lawsuit, which was filed in February, names West Virginia Secretary of State Kris Warner in his official capacity. West Virginia is one of 30 states and Washington D.C. being sued by the administration for not handing over their state’s voter file. protecting voters’ data from federal overreach.

“Demands for West Virginians’ sensitive voter data are about far more than access to the data itself — they are part and parcel with the Trump administration's dangerous and misguided attempts to assert authority over elections that it does not have,” said Renata O’Donnell, senior legal counsel for strategic litigation at Campaign Legal Center. “The Constitution clearly gives the power to regulate and administer elections to the states and Congress, not the executive branch — and that includes the Justice Department. Voters in West Virginia should trust that their sensitive data remains safeguarded, and Campaign Legal Center will continue to defend this right in court.”

CAG Deputy Director Julie Archer said: “The federal government has no valid basis or purpose for seizing West Virginia voters’ sensitive data, which includes highly sensitive information, such as voters' Social Security numbers, dates of birth and other personal identifiers. State and local election officials should be the only ones with access to these, as they run our elections. The DOJ's investigation leans heavily on long-debunked conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 election. These baseless claims are being used as justification to break the law and interfere with free and fair elections.”

###

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials.

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events.

Issues
The Rule of Law
Voting and Elections

Crucial Changes in Tennessee Voting Rights Restoration Laws Take Effect

Date
Body

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Last month, Tennessee lawmakers approved new bipartisan legislation to make it easier for people with previous felony convictions to vote in the state. Senate Bill 0336 and House Bill 067 eliminated the court costs requirement and opened the door for people who are compliant with child support payment orders for a year to restore their voting rights.  

Campaign Legal Center’s Restore Your Vote program coordinated alongside advocates at the Tennessee-based Free Hearts to support the legislation and get it across the finish line. Free Hearts is an organization led by formerly incarcerated women who have restored their voting rights and are now working to expand the freedom to vote for thousands more in the state of Tennessee.  

“The passage of this legislation reflects a commitment to a more inclusive democracy in Tennessee,” said Keeda Haynes, senior legal counsel at Free Hearts. “For generations, our state has restricted access to the ballot for directly impacted individuals in ways that narrowed participation and left too many voices unheard. By removing financial barriers that have long stood in the way of voting rights restoration, this law reinforces a core democratic principle, that our democracy works best when everyone is included.”

“This is what justice looks like: removing barriers that never should have existed in the first place and opening the door for hundreds of thousands of Tennesseans to reclaim their voice,” said Dawn Harrington, executive director of Free Hearts. “It’s a powerful example of what directly impacted-led organizing, coalition building and persistence over time can achieve, even in places where the path to change isn’t easy.”

“This process is still far from perfect, but removing financial barriers is a significant step forward,” said Gicola Lane, the senior community partnerships manager of Restore Your Vote at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “I’ve seen how discouraging it can be for people to do everything right and still be denied their rights simply because they can’t afford legal debt. This change creates a more realistic path for people to have their voices heard."

“This law is a significant milestone, marking the first improvement to Tennessee’s voting rights restoration law in two decades,” said Blair Bowie, director of Restore Your Vote at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “But Tennessee still has the highest rate of disenfranchisement in the country and lags significantly behind much of the country when it comes to voting rights restoration, as most states will restore a person’s voting rights once they’ve completed their prison sentence. Clearly, more must be done.”

Follow the latest updates via Campaign Legal Center’s case page.

###

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials.

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events. 

Issues
Voting and Elections

Second Unlawful Anti-Voter Executive Order Challenged by Voting Rights Coalition

Date
Body

WASHINGTON — Today, Campaign Legal Center and Democracy Defenders Fund sued the Executive Office of the President — alongside members of the president’s Cabinet and select federal agencies — on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Secure Families Initiative and Arizona Students’ Association. The complaint asserts that the most recent executive order on elections unconstitutionally violates the separation of powers and exceeds the president’s legal authority by attempting to limit access to mail-in voting and threatening the freedom to vote for millions of Americans.

Attempting to limit access to mail-in voting through an executive order is an unconstitutional and illegal abuse of executive power. The Constitution is clear: Only the states and Congress have the power to regulate elections — not the president. And only Congress has the power to regulate the U.S. mail.

Voting by mail is a safe, secure and accessible method used by millions of Americans — including the president himself — to cast their ballots. It's also an institution that has been used reliably by military voters for over 150 years. Attempting to create a national voter registry with faulty data not only threatens to disenfranchise millions of voters, but it lies outside the authority of the federal government.

This is especially so for the portion of the order that purports to direct the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to play a role; USPS is an independent agency regulated by Congress, and it cannot be controlled or compelled to act by the president.

“The president does not have the authority to do this,” said Juan Proaño, chief executive officer of LULAC. “He is using the specter of noncitizen voting to make it harder for eligible Americans to vote. We know what this executive order is meant to do, and we will not stand by while he tries to unilaterally rewrite our election laws.”

"This is an unprecedented attempt by the president to not only unconstitutionally assert total authority over our elections, but also to dictate who can make their voices heard through an unlawful decree limiting mail-in voting,” said Danielle Lang, the vice president of voting rights and the rule of law at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “Attempts to command the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to work with independent agencies on efforts to disenfranchise eligible voters — including compiling a purported list of all voters using stale and outdated data and attempting to prevent the U.S. Postal Service from delivering ballots to eligible Americans — are simply unconstitutional and violate long-standing protections for Americans.”

"Military families make daily sacrifices in service to our country — including our willingness to frequently uproot our families every time the military stations us far away from home," said Sarah Streyder, executive director of Secure Families Initiative. "This Executive Order ignores that reality of military life, imposing unnecessary and redundant barriers to our ability to vote in the very democracy we serve to protect. This Executive Order will indisputably harm military voters, at least half of whom are Americans of color."

“The last time Trump tried to take over our elections with an executive order, we stopped him, and we are going to court to do the same thing here. This order is an attempt to drag election administration out of the hands of the states where it belongs, and into the White House where it has no place,” said Amb. Norm Eisen (ret.), co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund. “It tells federal agencies to assemble voter lists, block the delivery of mail ballots, and put state officials under threat of investigation or prosecution. We hope the court will act quickly to block all this before it disrupts elections and hurts voters.”

“Recent executive actions impacting voter registration and mail-in voting raise serious concerns for students across Arizona. Policies that introduce new layers of verification or rely on federal databases risk creating unnecessary barriers, especially for students whose addresses or records may not perfectly align across systems. As an organization, we know that for many students, we are their first introduction to civic participation. That responsibility matters. It means ensuring students feel confident, informed, and empowered—not confused, discouraged, or excluded,” said Jessica Mendoza, executive director of Arizona Students’ Association. “We believe voting is one of the most important and effective ways to exercise our rights in this country. Any effort that makes that process more complicated or inaccessible moves us in the wrong direction. Instead of adding barriers, we should be working to uplift them—meeting students where they are, removing obstacles, and expanding access to the democratic process. Students deserve a system that recognizes their realities and supports their participation, not one that makes it harder to have their voices heard.”

It is clear that the president is using this unlawful executive order to unconstitutionally shape the electorate to his will, limit access to mail voting for millions of Americans, and attempt to sow doubt in how our elections are run.

Through a previous executive order, President Trump attempted to abuse his power by trying to establish unconstitutional proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration. This same coalition of nonprofits and voting rights groups successfully blocked two key provisions of that executive order. The demands in President Trump’s new executive order also are illegal. Read more about our lawsuit here and follow updates to our case here.

###

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials.

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events.

Issues
Voting and Elections
The Rule of Law

Defending Vote by Mail from the Trump Administration’s Unconstitutional Executive Overreach (LULAC, et al. v. Executive Office of the President)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center — along with Democracy Defenders Fund (DDF) and on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Secure Families Initiative (SFI) and Arizona Students’ Association (ASA) — is challenging President Trump’s illegal executive order on voting by mail.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
The Rule of Law
About This Case/Action

On March 31, 2026, President Trump issued his second executive order on elections. Like his March 2025 order, this is another illegal and unconstitutional attempt by the federal government to take control of our elections.

The Constitution gives the states and Congress the power to regulate our elections — not the president. 

On behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Secure Families Initiative (SFI) and the Arizona Students’ Association (ASA), Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Democracy Defenders Fund (DDF) filed a lawsuit to stop this unconstitutional executive overreach; defend the independence of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS); protect the freedom to vote; and safeguard the separation of powers and our system of checks and balances. 

By attempting — without any legal authority — to create a national registry of federally verified citizens, exert unlawful control over USPS and dictate who can vote by mail and how they must do it, this executive order could prevent millions of Americans from exercising their essential freedom to vote and make their voices heard through our elections. 

The president has no power to set election rules. Despite that, this executive order directs the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to work with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) to provide a “state citizenship” list to each state 60 days before each federal election. 

The executive order also directs USPS to issue new regulations specifying envelopes and barcodes that must be used for ballot mail, as well as to develop a list of approved absentee and mail voters that would require voters to “enroll” with USPS to receive a mail ballot. States “may” also send USPS a list of voters eligible to vote by mail. 

It is unclear from the text of the order how these various lists will interact with one another or how exactly USPS and state and local election officials are supposed to use them. But the order threatens any official who sends a mail ballot to an ineligible voter with investigation and prosecution by the Department of Justice and the withholding of federal funding from states who do not comply. 

Under the Constitution and federal law, the president has no power to do this, nor does the Department of Homeland Security have the authority to create a national voter registry. 

The president also has no authority to order USPS to enact policy changes. Under the Constitution, Congress has the exclusive power to regulate the mail — and the president cannot force USPS to take action contrary to laws Congress has established. 

The president’s unconstitutional effort to set election rules limiting access to vote by mail is another clear violation of the separation of powers, and if implemented, would prevent millions of eligible Americans from voting by mail. It also would subject election officials to prosecution by the federal government for sending ballots to eligible voters. 

We are asking the court to declare President Trump’s executive order illegal and block the order from taking effect to stop this unconstitutional executive overreach into our elections.

Joint Statement from CLC, DDF and LULAC Regarding President Trump’s New Elections Executive Order

Date
Body

WASHINGTON — On March 31, 2026, President Donald Trump signed an anti-voter executive order that threatens Americans’ freedom to vote. Danielle Lang, vice president of voting rights and the rule of law at Campaign Legal Center (CLC), issued the following joint statement alongside Norm Eisen of the Democracy Defenders Fund (DDF) and Juan Proaño of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC):

"Our coalition defeated President Trump's last illegal anti-voter executive order in court, and we will defeat this unlawful and incoherent one, too. We are drafting the lawsuit right now. The Constitution gives authority over elections to the states and Congress. The president does not have the power he is claiming. We will see him in court."

###

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials.

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events.

Issues
Voting and Elections
The Rule of Law
Subscribe to