In October 2002, Reps. Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the FEC challenging 19 regulations adopted by the FEC to implement Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). In September 2004, the District Court struck down 15 of the 19 contested regulations and ordered the FEC to rewrite the rules. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court decision.

In August 2005, a constitutional challenge was filed against various provisions of North Carolina’s public financing system for judicial elections, including (1) the provision of “rescue funds” to participating candidates if a nonparticipating candidate or an independent spender makes expenditures above certain thresholds, (2) reporting requirements for non-participating candidates and independent spenders for expenditures above these thresholds, and (3) the 21-day pre-election contribution restriction.  The district court dismissed the lawsuit.  Plaintiffs appealed. In May 2008, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld all challenged provisions of North Carolina’s judicial election public financing program.

The State of Texas unsuccessfully sought preclearance approval under the Voting Rights Act of its 2011 voter photo ID law (SB 14).  A three-judge court in Washington DC denied preclearance approval because it found the law to be discriminatory.  Following its decision in Shelby County v. Holder declaring the coverage formula of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, the Court vacated the judgment of the DC Court.

In 2007, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that BCRA’s prohibition on corporate electioneering communications—defined as broadcast ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election that named a candidate and were targeted at the relevant voters—was unconstitutional as applied to ads that did not constitute express advocacy of the election or defeat of a candidate or its functional equivalent. However, the Court did not find the same “express advocacy” limitation applied to BCRA’s disclosure requirements for electioneering communications. 

The CLC was part of the legal team representing Amici Curiae Senator John McCain, Representative Christopher Shays and Representative Martin Meehan in support of the FEC.

In January 2004, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and others filed a constitutional challenge to several aspects of Arizona’s public campaign financing system. The district court dismissed the challenge, and plaintiffs appealed.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit originally affirmed the lower court, dismissing the entire case as moot on May 10, 2007. Upon plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing, however, the Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, determined that some of the claims were not moot, and remanded the case to the district court to permit further development of these claims. Plaintiffs eventually voluntarily dismissed their case, with similar issues being litigated in McComish v. Bennett.

In Valdes v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reviewed the conviction of a police officer under the federal gratuities statute accepting cash from an undercover FBI agent in exchange for searching law enforcement databases for information.  The D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed the conviction, finding that the police officer’s action did not rise to the level of an “official act” as required by federal law because his use of the database was not part of a pending police matter and not part of his assigned official duties.  It construed the term “official act” to include only those formal, official actions that are connected to a “class of questions or matters whose answer or disposition is determined by the government,” thereby greatly narrowing the scope and effectiveness of the federal prohibition on gratuities.

In 2006, the Christian Civic League challenged the constitutionality of BCRA’s electioneering communications provision as applied to advertisement CCL alleged it wished to broadcast naming a candidate during the period before the election. A three-judge District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the suit as moot.  In 2007, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the district court “for further consideration in light of Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.”

The CLC served as co-counsel to the defendant-intervenors.