ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED 

No. 22-5323

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

________________________________________________________

 John Anthony Castro, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

v.

Federal Election Commission, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

_____________________________________________________________________

ON APPEAL FORM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

ORIGINATING CIVIL CASE NO.: 22-2176

Honorable Rudolph Contreras, U.S. District Judge

____________________________________________ 

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE 

____________________________________________ 

Respectfully submitted:

John Anthony Castro 

12 Park Place 

Mansfield, Texas 76063 

Tel. (202) 594-4344 

 

Pro-Se 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1989412 Filed: 03/09/2023 Page 1 of 13
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................... ii

INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1

BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................2

A. The Commission’s Administrative Complaint and Enforcement Process ...........2

B. Appellant’s Administrative Complaint .................................................................3

C. District Court Proceedings ...............................................................................3

ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................4

CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................7

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.........................................................................9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE......................................................................10

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1989412 Filed: 03/09/2023 Page 2 of 13
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Castro v. FEC, 1:22-cv-02176 (RC) ( D.D.C. Dec. 6, 62022)..................................8

Common Cause v. FEC, 842 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1988)...........................................7

Democratic Cong. Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 831 F.2d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1987).......7

Sills v. Bureau of Prisons, 761 F.2d 792 (D.C. Cir. 1985)..................................9, 10

Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d. 294 (D.C. Cir. 1987).....................9

Statutes

5 U.S.C. § 705................................................................................................. 5, 8, 11

5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)....................................................................................... 5, 8, 11

52 U.S.C § 30109(a)(8)(C) ........................................................................................7

52 U.S.C. § 30101(2)................................................................................ 5,8,9,10,11

52. U.S.C. § 30109(a)(3)............................................................................................6

52 U.S.C. § 30106(c) .................................................................................................6

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1).............................................................................................6

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2).............................................................................................6

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6)(A).......................................................................................6

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A).......................................................................................7

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(4)(A), (a)(5)............................................................................6

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1989412 Filed: 03/09/2023 Page 3 of 13
1

INTRODUCTION

The legal question for this Court is quite simply whether the FEC has the 

authority to determine a candidate’s eligibility since a constitutionally ineligible 

individual cannot be a “candidate” within the meaning of 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2).

According to the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), this Honorable 

Court should summarily affirm the district court’s finding that Appellant lacked 

Article III standing on the basis that Appellant’s competitive political injury was not 

traceable to the FEC since the FEC lacks the statutory authority to determine a 

candidate’s eligibility.

However, a careful application of the canons of statutory construction and 

interpretation reveals that, pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2), the FEC can and must 

determine an individual’s eligibility to pursue and/or hold public office prior to 

accepting or maintaining an individual’s FEC Form 2, Statement of Candidacy. If 

the FEC is permitted to accept an FEC Form 2 with knowingly false information 

from a constitutionally ineligible candidate, such agency action would be “not in 

accordance with the law” pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and subject to injunctive 

relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705.

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1989412 Filed: 03/09/2023 Page 4 of 13
2

BACKGROUND 

A. The Commission’s Administrative Complaint and Enforcement Process 

FECA sets forth a detailed, multi-stage process for the FEC’s review and 

resolution of private administrative complaints. 

Any person may file a complaint alleging a violation of FECA, 52 U.S.C. § 

30109(a)(1). The FEC, after reviewing the complaint and any responses, then votes 

on whether there is “reason to believe” a violation has occurred, in which case it 

“shall” investigate. Id. § 30109(a)(2). FECA requires an affirmative vote of four 

Commissioners to undertake most agency actions, id. § 30106(c), including a reasonto-believe finding necessary to initiate an investigation, id. § 30109(a)(2). 

After the investigation, the FEC votes on whether there is “probable cause” to 

believe FECA was violated. Id. § 30109(a)(3). If it determines, by an affirmative 

vote of at least four Commissioners, that there is probable cause, it “shall” attempt 

to “correct or prevent such violation” by conciliating with the respondent. Id. 

§ 30109(a)(4)(A), (a)(5). If the FEC is unable to correct the violation and enter a 

conciliation agreement, it “may,” by the affirmative vote of at least four 

Commissioners, institute a civil action against the respondent. Id. § 30109(a)(6)(A).

If, at any of these decision-making junctures, fewer than four Commissioners 

vote to proceed, the FEC may vote to dismiss the complaint and the majority or 

controlling group must issue a Statement of Reasons to permit subsequent judicial 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1989412 Filed: 03/09/2023 Page 5 of 13
3

review. Common Cause v. FEC, 842 F.2d 436, 449 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Democratic 

Cong. Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 831 F.2d 1131, 1135 & n.5 (D.C. Cir. 1987). 

FECA also provides a right of judicial review to the complainant: “Any party 

aggrieved by an order of the FEC dismissing a complaint filed by such party . . . may 

file a petition” in the district court seeking review of the FEC’s action. 52 U.S.C. § 

30109(a)(8)(A). If the court finds the dismissal “contrary to law,” it may order the 

FEC to conform with such declaration within 30 days. Id. § 30109(a)(8)(C). If the 

FEC fails to conform, the complainant may bring a civil action directly against the 

respondents to remedy the violation. Id.

B. Appellant’s Administrative Complaint 

Appellant filed an administrative complaint with the FEC on March 23, 2022.

The FEC failed to act on the administrative complaint within 120 days as required 

by law.

C. District Court Proceedings

On July 25, 2022, Appellant filed a judicial complaint with the district court 

against the FEC. In the Complaint, Appellant sought to obtain injunctive relief to 

prevent the FEC from accepting Donald J. Trump’s FEC Form 2, Statement of 

Candidacy, on the grounds that he is disqualified from holding public office pursuant 

to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and that the FEC’s 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1989412 Filed: 03/09/2023 Page 6 of 13
4

acceptance would be agency action “not in accordance with the law” pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and subject to injunctive relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705. 

Specifically, Appellant explained that because Donald J. Trump is not qualified to 

hold public office pursuant to the self-executing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment 

for having provided “aid or comfort” to the January 6 Insurrectionists, he could not 

be a “candidate” within the meaning of 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2).

In response to Appellant’s explicit citation to 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2), the lower 

Court ruled that “Mr. Castro's alleged injury—having to compete with Mr. Trump—

is not traceable to the Commission... [because the] FEC... possesses no authority to 

evaluate a prospective candidate’s eligibility for federal office... [and] Mr. Castro 

has not pointed to a statute or regulation indicating otherwise.” Castro v. FEC, No. 

CV 22-2176 (RC), 2022 WL 17976630, at *2 (D.D.C. Dec. 6, 2022). The lower 

Court completely disregarded Appellant’s explicit citation to 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2)

as the statute providing the FEC with the authority to assess an individual’s 

eligibility.

ARGUMENT

I. Standard of Review

“A party seeking summary disposition bears the heavy burden of establishing 

that the merits of his case are so clear that expedited action is justified.” Taxpayers 

Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Before 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1989412 Filed: 03/09/2023 Page 7 of 13
5

summarily affirming a district court’s ruling, “this court must conclude that no 

benefit will be gained from further briefing and argument of the issues presented.” 

Id. at 297-98. Because the appellant’s right to proceed is “so clear,” the merits of the 

case must be “given the fullest consideration necessary to a just determination.” Sills 

v. Bureau of Prisons, 761 F.2d 792, 793-94 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

The FEC has clearly failed to meet its “heavy burden” of demonstrating that 

summary affirmance is “so clear” as to be warranted. In fact, the only thing clear is 

that the lower Court utterly and inexcusably failed to consider Appellant’s assertion 

that 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2) serves as the statutory authority for the FEC to determine 

an individual’s eligibility to be a “candidate.”

II. Castro Cited 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2) as the FEC’s Statutory Authority to 

Determine Eligibility

The lower Court held the following: “Mr. Castro’s alleged injury—having to 

compete with Mr. Trump—is not traceable to the FEC. Traceability requires a causal 

connection between the injury and the conduct complained of. According to Mr. 

Castro, by accepting Mr. Trump's statement of candidacy, FEC Form 2, the FEC has 

confirmed Mr. Trump's eligibility to run for President, thereby creating competitive 

harm for Mr. Castro. But this erroneous idea—upon which Mr. Castro's entire case 

turns—is completely lacking in support. The FEC explains that it possesses no 

authority to evaluate a prospective candidate's eligibility for federal office. It 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1989412 Filed: 03/09/2023 Page 8 of 13
6

represents that, under the FECA, Congress only gave the agency power to regulate 

federal campaign finance—that is, among other things, the raising, spending, and 

disclosing of campaign funds—and not to determine who is constitutionally eligible 

to run for office. Mr. Castro has not pointed to a statute or regulation indicating 

otherwise.” Castro v. FEC, No. CV 22-2176 (RC), 2022 WL 17976630, at *2 

(D.D.C. Dec. 6, 2022).

The Court’s ruling contained a verifiably false assertion. In ECF 20, 

Appellant cited 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2)’s definition of a “candidate.” A careful study 

of the statutory construction reveals that a candidate is someone who “seeks 

nomination for election, or election, to Federal office.” The FEC would have this 

Honorable Court disregard the opening definition of a candidate and only focus on 

the situation where an individual is “deemed to seek nomination for election, or 

election” for crossing the direct or indirect $5,000 contribution or expenditure 

threshold.

If an individual is constitutionally ineligible to seek or hold public office, then 

they cannot legally be considered a “candidate” within the meaning of 52 U.S.C. § 

30101(2).

The legal question for this Court is, if it is accepted as true that a candidate is 

constitutionally ineligible to pursue and/or hold public office, can that person 

lawfully be considered a “candidate” for purposes of 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2)? And if 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1989412 Filed: 03/09/2023 Page 9 of 13
this Court determines that a constitutionally ineligible individual cannot be a 

candidate within the meaning of 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2), does the FEC have the 

authority thereunder to make a determination as to eligibility when said eligibility is 

challenged by a fellow primary candidate? And if the FEC does not take corrective 

action, is the agency’s action “not in accordance with the law” pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 706(2)(A) and subjective to injunctive relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705?

CONCLUSION

A constitutionally ineligible individual cannot be considered a “candidate” for 

purposes of 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2). The FEC has the authority under 52 U.S.C. § 

30101(2) to make a determination as to eligibility when said eligibility is challenged 

by a fellow primary candidate in an administrative complaint. If the FEC does not 

take corrective action, it would constitute agency action “not in accordance with the 

law” pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and subjective to injunctive relief pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. § 705. 

Most importantly, the record reveals the lower Court completely failed to 

consider Appellant’s assertion that 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2) provides the statutory 

authority to determine eligibility.

For all of the reasons, the FEC’s motion should be denied. 

Dated: March 9, 2023 

7 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1989412 Filed: 03/09/2023 Page 10 of 13
8 

Respectfully submitted,

By: ____________________________

John Anthony Castro

12 Park Place

Mansfield, TX 76063

Tel. (202) 594-4344

J.Castro@JohnCastro.com

Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1989412 Filed: 03/09/2023 Page 11 of 13
9 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 

I hereby certify, on this 9

th day of March, 2023, that: 

1. This document complies with the word limit of Fed. R. App.P.

32(a)(7) because, excluding the parts of the document exempted by Fed. R. App. 

32(f) and Circuit Rule 32(e), this document contains 1658 words. 

2. This document complies with the typeface requirements of Fed.

R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. 32(a)(6) because

this document has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft 

Word 2013 in a 14-Point New Roman font. 

 s/_____________________________ 

John Anthony Castro

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1989412 Filed: 03/09/2023 Page 12 of 13
10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that on March 9, 2023 I electronically filed the 

foregoing document with the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the 

D.C. Circuit by using the Court’s CM/ECF system. All participants are registered

CM/ECF users and will be served by the appellate CM/ECF system.

s/_____________________________ 

 John Anthony Castro

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1989412 Filed: 03/09/2023 Page 13 of 13