Maine Right To Life v. Federal Election
Case Date: 10/18/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-1532
|
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-1532 MAINE RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, INC., ET AL., Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISION, ET AL., Defendant - Appellant. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Cyr and Boudin, Circuit Judges. ______________ _____________________ David Kolker, Attorney, with whom Lawrence M. Noble, General ____________ _________________ Counsel, and Richard B. Bader, Associate General Counsel, were on ________________ brief for appellant Federal Election Commission. Dennis M. Flannery, Ankur J. Goel, Wilmer, Cutler & ____________________ ________________ __________________ Pickering and Donald J. Simon on brief for Common Cause, amicus _________ ________________ curiae. James Bopp, Jr., with whom Paul R. Scholle, Bopp, Coleson & ________________ _______________ _______________ Bostrom, Daniel M. Snow and Pierce Atwood were on brief for _______ _______________ ______________ appellees. ____________________ October 18, 1996 ____________________ Per Curiam. Defendant-appellant, the Federal Election Per Curiam. ___________ Commission ("FEC"), appeals the decision of the district court that "11 C.F.R. 100.22(b) is contrary to the [Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 2 U.S.C. 431-55,] as the Supreme Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals have interpreted it and thus beyond the power of the FEC." Maine Right to Life _____________________ Committee, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission, 914 F. Supp. 8, _______________ ____________________________ 13 (D. Me. 1996). Appellant argues that the "express advocacy" regulation promulgated in 100.22(b) is facially reasonable, advances compelling governmental interests, and is entitled to deference. After a careful evaluation of the parties' briefs and the record on appeal, we affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court opinion. See Maine Right to Life ___ ____________________ Committee, 914 F. Supp. 8; see also Federal Election Commission _________ ________ ____________________________ v. Christian Action Network, 894 F. Supp. 946 (W.D. Va. 1995), ________________________ aff'd per curiam, 92 F.3d 1178 (table), No. 95-2600, (4th Cir. _________________ Aug. 2, 1996) (unpublished disposition) (granting defendants' motion to dismiss on the grounds that the complained-of actions did not constitute violations of FECA, and the FEC lacked jurisdiction to bring suit). Costs to appellee. Affirmed. ________ -2- -2- |