[EL] Van Hollen v. FEC reversed

[Beth Kingsley]

Was anyone else as amused by this sentence as I was? "For example, neither the court nor the parties understand the reference to 11 C.F.R. § 114.15 in § 104.20(c)(9)."

And more seriously, the case seems to be in a very odd procedural posture, with the COA dragging the FEC back into the middle of the fight. The District Court is instructed to refer the matter to the FEC for further consideration, and it must either commence a new rulemaking or defend the current regulations under Chevron step 2 and an "arbitrary and capricious" argument. So what happens in the all too likely event that the Commission can't get 4 votes for either course of action?

Beth

Elizabeth Kingsley
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP
1726 M St., NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
202-328-3500
www.harmoncurran.com




From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Hoersting
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:51 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: [EL] Van Hollen v. FEC reversed

A huge win for Intervenors' counsel in Van Hollen v. FEC before the D.C. Circuit. Also a win for the FEC, if the agency can see it that way.

Most importantly, a win for robust political participation 50 days from the election.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/582177A123FA411885257A7D004DA421/$file/12-5117-1394950.pdf

(H/T @MichaelEToner)

--
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120918/16189915/attachment.html>