18 of 1 Page 07/12/2022 :Filed #1954546 Document #22-5140 Case USCA

 [SCHEDULED YET NOT ARGUMENT ORAL[

 22-5167 22-5140, .Nos

 APPEALS OF COURT STATES UNITED THE IN

 CIRCUIT COLUMBIA OF DISTRICT THE FOR

 ,CENTER LEGAL CAMPAIGN

 ,Appellee-Plaintiff

 .v

 ,COMMISSION ELECTION FEDERAL

 ,Appellee-Defendant

 ,AMERICA FOR ACTION HERITAGE

 .Appellant-Movant

 Court District States United the from Appeal On

 Columbia of District the for

 TO MOTION OPPOSED S’APPELLANT OF SUPPORT IN REPLY

 ABEYANCE IN APPEALS HOLD

 Shumate .A Brett

 Crosland Stewart .E

 Lucas Brinton

 Kenny .J Stephen

 DAY JONES

 NW .Ave Louisiana 51

 20001 DC ,Washington

 879-3939 (202)

 com.jonesday@bshumate

 Appellant for Counsel
 18 of 2 Page 07/12/2022 :Filed #1954546 Document #22-5140 Case USCA

 CONTENTS OF TABLE

 Page

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

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

 ...........................................................................................................2 ARGUMENT

 EFFECT MAY RULING DISMISS-TO-MOTION THE .I

 ..................................................2 APPEALS THESE OF OUTCOME THE

 PREJUDICE WILL ABEYANCE DENYING .II

 ....................................................................................9 ACTION HERITAGE

 .....................11 CENTER THE PREJUDICE NOT WILL ABEYANCE .III

 ......................................................................................................12CONCLUSION

 ................................................................13COMPLIANCE OF CERTIFICATE

 ..........................................................................14 SERVICE OF CERTIFICATE

 i
 18 of 3 Page 07/12/2022 :Filed #1954546 Document #22-5140 Case USCA

 AUTHORITIES OF TABLE

 (s(Page

 CASES

 ,Iraq of Republic .v Acree

 3 .............................................................................. (2004 .Cir .C.D (41 d.3F 370

 ,HHS .v Realtors of n’Ass .Ala

 7 ......................................................................................... (2021) 2485 .Ct .S 141

 ,EPA .v .Inst Petroleum .Am

 9 .............................................................................(2012 .Cir .C.D (382 d.3F 683

 ,EPA .v .Inst Petroleum .Am

 6 .............................................................................. (1996 .Cir .C.D (907 d.3F 72

 .,Corp H & Y .v Arbaugh

 8 .............................................................................................. (2006) 500 .S.U 546

 ,California .v Arizona

 8 .............................................................................................. (2000) 392 .S.U 530

 ,Gates .v Basardh

 9 6, 2, ................................................................... (2008 .Cir .C.D (1068 d.3F 545

 .,C.S.P .,Ctr Surgical s’Women EMW .v Cameron

 4 ......................................................................................... (2022) 1002 .Ct .S 142

 ,FEC .v .Wash in Ethics & .Resp for Citizens

 7 .............................................................................(2018 .Cir .C.D (434 d.3F 892

 ,FEC .v .Wash in Ethics & .Resp for Citizens

 7 .............................................................................(2021 .Cir .C.D (880 d.3F 993

 ,FEC .v Strategies y’Pol Grassroots Crossroads

 8 5, .........................................................................(2015 .Cir .C.D (312 d.3F 788

 ,Perciasepe .v Wildlife of .Defs

 3 ........................................................................... (2013 .Cir .C.D (1317 d.3F 714

 ,n’Comm .Regul Nuclear .v Devia

 9 .............................................................................(2007 .Cir .C.D (421 d.3F 492

 ,Hollen Van .v .Inc ,J Flying

 4 ............................................................................... (2009 .Cir th7 (569 d.3F 578

 ii
 18 of 4 Page 07/12/2022 :Filed #1954546 Document #22-5140 Case USCA

 AUTHORITIES OF TABLE

 (continued(

 (s(Page

 ,CIA .v Paisley

 .............................................................................6(1984 .Cir .C.D (201 d.2F 724

 ,FEC .v Perot

 ..............................................................................7 (1996 .Cir .C.D (553 d.3F 97

 ,Beaty .v Iraq of Republic

 ..............................................................................................3 (2009) 848 .S.U 556

 ,Stanley .v .Inc ,Watchdog Taxpayers

 .............................................................................5(1987 .Cir .C.D (294 d.2F 819

 ,Quinn .v States United

 ...........................................................................9 (2007 .Cir .C.D (1289 d.3F 475

 ,Sebelius .v .Coll Wheaton

 .............................................................................9(2012 .Cir .C.D (551 d.3F 703

 STATUTES

 .....................................................................................................2 30109 § .C.S.U 52

 iii
 18 of 5 Page 07/12/2022 :Filed #1954546 Document #22-5140 Case USCA

 INTRODUCTION

 into appeals these place to Court this asked America for Action Heritage

 Legal Campaign dismiss to motion pending its of disposition because abeyance

 The .appeals these resolve to need the obviate may suit citizen s’Center

 ,modest this to objection stubborn its justify to fails opposition s’Center

 Action Heritage that given mystifying is case this affect cannot ruling dismissto-motion the that assertion s’Center the ,First .request commonsense

 conclusively is suit citizen the if appeals these drop will it that clear made has

 will Action Heritage that claim s’Center the ,Second 15. .Mot .dismissed

 of burdens the ignores schedule briefing ordinary an from prejudice no suffer

 proceedings to due irrelevant become soon may that matters litigating

 s’Center the ,Third .abeyance justifying injury textbook a—elsewhere

 rulings of review appellate deferring by harmed be would it that insistence

 exists that finality in interest generalized a to reduces preserve to seeks it that

 good no offered has Center the ,short In .filed is motion abeyance an whenever

 .here motion abeyance the denying for reason

 1
 18 of 6 Page 07/12/2022 :Filed #1954546 Document #22-5140 Case USCA

 ARGUMENT

 THE EFFECT MAY RULING DISMISS-TO-MOTION THE .I

 .APPEALS THESE OF OUTCOME

 Heritage grants Nichols Judge If .simple is here abeyance for case The

 .Dkt -1248cv1:22- ,suit citizen s’Center the dismiss to motion pending s’Action

 to need longer no will Action Heritage ,final becomes ruling that and 20,

 ,partially or ,entirely may “thus dismissal a Because .appeals these pursue

 .v Basardh” .abeyance in “them hold should Court this ,appeals these” moot

 Center the While 14-15. .Mot see); 2008 .Cir .C.D (1069 1068, d.3F 545 ,Gates

 the affect “cannot ruling dismiss-to-motion the that insists nevertheless

 .claim implausible that defend to fails it 2, .Opp” ,case this of outcome

 ruling dismiss-to-motion the that observing by begins Center The .A

 district the whether—appeal this in question” threshold “the resolve not will

 .intervene to motion s’Action Heritage denying in error legal committed court

 will suit citizen the of dismissal A .abeyance of favor in cuts that But 13. .Opp

 resources further devote to having from parties the and Court this both save

 acquiesces Center the If .here intervention of issue threshold the resolving to

 Center the if And .appeals these dismiss will Action Heritage ,order that to

 in issue merits the to directly proceed could Court this 17, .Opp see ,it appeals

 .C.S.U 52 under suit citizen its pursue may Center the whether—appeals these

 2
 18 of 7 Page 07/12/2022 :Filed #1954546 Document #22-5140 Case USCA

 of question threshold the address to having without)—C)(8)(a(30109§ 

 ,eliminate not if ,reduce would abeyance granting ,way Either .intervention

 to sense no makes therefore It .attention s’Court this requiring issues the

 .1resurface never may question that when ,now issue intervention the address

 the on inappropriate is abeyance that contends next Center The .B

 But 13-15. .Opp .disposition summary warrant appeals these that premise

 not does ,issue intervention the of merits the to goes which ,argument that

 s’Center the grants Court this If .appropriate is abeyance whether resolve

 no be will there and over be will appeals these ,motion disposition-summary

 denies Court this if And .resolution their defer to whether consider to need

 the ,way Either .before as same the be will calculus abeyance the ,motion that

 .point the beside is here issue intervention the into dipping-toe s’Center

1

 Court this whether—“question threshold second a raises Center the While 

 district the appeal to attempt s’Action Heritage over jurisdiction appellate has

 the on entirely turns issue that—13 .Opp” ,nonparty a as judgment s’court

is intervention of denial the If .question intervention the of resolution

 addressing without here question merits the consider can Court this ,reversed

 d.3F 370 ,Iraq of Republic .v Acree .,g.e ,See .status prior s’Action Heritage

 .v Iraq of Republic by grounds other on abrogated ,)2004 .Cir .C.D (51 41,

 these ,affirmed ultimately is denial the if And .)2009 (848 .S.U 556 ,Beaty

 d.3F 714 ,Perciasepe .v Wildlife of .Defs .,g.e ,See .dismissed be will appeals

 .(2013 .Cir .C.D (1328 1317,

 3
 

 18 of 8 Page 07/12/2022 :Filed #1954546 Document #22-5140 Case USCA

 “forthcoming its in explain fully will “Action Heritage as ,event any In

 .meritless is motion disposition-summary s’Center the 13, .Opp ,opposition

 “discretion its abuse not did court district the “that asserts Center the While

 on rests ruling that 14, .Opp” ,untimely as “motion intervention the denying in

 .,C.S.P .,Ctr Surgical s’Women EMW .v Cameron See .errors legal multiple

 of assessment “s’court lower the that holding) (2022 (1012 1002, .Ct .S 142

 its exercise to fails court a “that noting and” mistaken was timeliness

 (“law the of view erroneous an on ruling its bases it when soundly discretion

 that insists ,court district the like ,Center the while ,example For .)up cleaned(

 14, .Opp’” ,intervention judgment-pre for opportunity clear a “‘was there

 advanced have could Action Heritage arguments what identified has neither

 was judgment after day the—proof released FEC the before intervenor an as

 complaint administrative s’Center the on acted fact in had it that—entered

 that without intervene to sought Action Heritage had And .earlier year a over

 as request the oppose to first the been have would Center the ,evidence

 in exercise an mandate not does requirement timeliness The .premature

 (2009 .Cir th7 (572 569, d.3F 578 ,Hollen Van .v .Inc ,J Flying .,g.e ,See .futility

 the ad]h “[because timely was motion intervention judgment-post holding(

 .(“denied been have ... would motion its ,earlier intervene to sought association

 4
 18 of 9 Page 07/12/2022 :Filed #1954546 Document #22-5140 Case USCA

 Heritage shows motion abeyance the that suggests also Center The

 it because” intervening in interest legal concrete a and standing “lacks Action

 district the even Not .5.n 14 .Opp” .suit citizen the in itself defend “to willing is

 are ... rights s’Action Heritage “that recognized it as ,far that went court

 liability civil to exposed “Being 5. at 34 .Dkt .case this in” implicated obviously

 “,fact in injury significant a “constitutes unquestionably” lawsuit private via

 .injury that triggers suit citizen s’Center the of authorization the and

 .Cir .C.D (318 312, d.3F 788 ,FEC .v Strategies y’Pol Grassroots Crossroads

 against itself defend to willing is Action Heritage That 5. at 34 .Dkt see); 2015

 real less any injury that make not does jurisdictions multiple in liability that

 .it redressing in effective less any authorization that of reversal a or

 intervention for arguments the that establishes remotely) motion dispositionsummary its or (opposition s’Center the in nothing ,minimum bare a At

 these of dispose summarily should Court this that insubstantial so are here

 of burden heavy the bears disposition summary seeking party A “.appeals

 is action expedited that clear so are case his of merits the that establishing

 .Cir .C.D (297 294, d.2F 819 ,Stanley .v .Inc ,Watchdog Taxpayers” ,justified

 has Court this as especially ,burden that carried not has Center The .)1987

 judgment-post whether including ,here issues the confronted never

 5
 18 of 10 Page 07/12/2022 :Filed #1954546 Document #22-5140 Case USCA

 while itself defend to failed has agency an when warranted is intervention

 .Inst Petroleum .Am See .courts the from evidence critical hiding deliberately

 first “of issue an that noting) (1996 .Cir .C.D (914 907, d.3F 72 ,EPA .v

 ,CIA .v Paisley .cf”); disposition summary for appropriate not “is” impression

 intervention judgment-post indicating) (1984 .Cir .C.D (.1n 202 201, d.2F 724

 discovered-newly attention s’court the to bring to “warranted be would

 .(“court the before brought previously been have not could that evidence

 this that notes Center the ,here question merits the to Turning .C

 That 16. .Opp .suit citizen the of dismissal a by” bound be not would “Court

 dismissal court-district a that not is point The .irrelevant and correct both is

 this on effect preclusive or precedential any have would suit citizen the of

 these for need the eliminate would it that but—not would it course of—Court

 pending abeyance in case “the held Court this ,Basardh in ,Indeed .appeals

 because simply” ,court district the in proceedings “parallel” of conclusion the

 ,partially or ,entirely may favor “s’petitioner the in ruling court-district a

 emphasis (1072 1069, at d.3F 545 .Court this before proceedings the” moot

 .too ,here true be may same The .)added

 that) explanation without (asserting in better no fares Center The

 “.dismiss to motion its of merits the on succeed to likely “not is Action Heritage

 6
 18 of 11 Page 07/12/2022 :Filed #1954546 Document #22-5140 Case USCA

 n’Ass .Ala” .losing] it [imagine to difficult is it “,contrary the To .6.n 15 .Opp

 repeatedly has Court this As .)2021 (2488 2485, .Ct .S 141 ,HHS .v Realtors of

 that determines first it unless suit citizen a authorize not may court a “,held

 three “the if” do cannot it which’” “,law to contrary ‘acted Commission the

 ground the on squarely judgment their placed Commission the on naysayers

 892 ,FEC .v .Wash in Ethics & .Resp for Citizens” .discretion prosecutorial of

 .Wash in Ethics & .Resp for Citizens accord); 2018 .Cir .C.D (439-40 434, d.3F

 is that undisputed is it And .)2021 .Cir .C.D (891 885 880, d.3F 993 ,FEC .v

 not does Center The 10-11. .Opp; 11-12 .Mot See .here happened what exactly

 not do cases these why explain to try alone let ,precedent this mention even

 .suit citizen its foreclose

 cannot Action Heritage that contends Center the ,vein similar a In

 authorized properly was suit citizen the whether of” merits the relitigate“

 timely to failed “Action Heritage that premise the on Nichols Judge before

 position opposite the take to appears it although—17 .Opp” ,below intervene

 premise erroneous that if Even .)11 at (motion disposition-summary its in

 Kelly Judge As .follow not would conclusion the ,correct somehow were

 question authorization the” consider to have will “Nichols Judge ,recognized

 .v Perot see; 6 at 34 .Dkt” .jurisdiction matter-subject “implicates it because

 7
 

 18 of 12 Page 07/12/2022 :Filed #1954546 Document #22-5140 Case USCA

 more spoken have not could Congress) (“1996 .Cir .C.D (557 553, d.3F 97 ,FEC

 under claims adjudicate to courts federal of jurisdiction the limiting in plainly

 objection The) (“2006 (506 500, .S.U 546 .,Corp H & Y .v Arbaugh”); .FECA the

 at ... raised be may ... jurisdiction matter-subject lacks court federal a that

 ,addition In .”).judgment of entry ... after even ,litigation the in stage any

 are “suit citizen the authorizing in conclusions his that observed Kelly Judge

 also see); 2000 (414 392, .S.U 530 ,California .v Arizona See .effect preclusiveissue lack judgments default as 6, at 34 .Dkt ,Nichols Judge on” preclusive not

 against suit the in orders court-district describing (320 at d.3F 788 ,Crossroads

 .(suit citizen subsequent in” weight persuasive “only having as FEC the

 that confirms ,however ,argument meritless this presses Center the That

 challenge to right its protect to appeals these maintain must Action Heritage

 appeal” ultimately “can it if even 15, .Mot ,suit citizen the of authorization the

 reach to needed burdens the sustaining after dismiss to motion its of denial a

 17. .Opp ,judgment final

 meritless these how demonstrates never Center the ,events all In

 While .abeyance in held be should appeals these whether resolve arguments

 this ,motion abeyance an considering in that) 12-13 .Opp (notes Center the

 ,stay a granting in factors traditional the of account take also may “Court

 8
 18 of 13 Page 07/12/2022 :Filed #1954546 Document #22-5140 Case USCA

 “ften]o “[Court this” ,prevail will movant the that likelihood the including

 the affect may ... proceedings pending other “because merely abeyance grants

 the or (merits the considering ever without it before” case the of outcome

 .,g.e ,see); added emphasis (1069 at d.3F 545 ,Basardh .)factors stay equitable

 .(2012 .Cir .C.D (553 551, d.3F 703 ,Sebelius .v .Coll Wheaton

 HERITAGE PREJUDICE WILL ABEYANCE DENYING .II

 .ACTION

 not has Action Heritage claiming in persuasive more no is Center The

 normal the in proceed appeals the should suffer will it ... harm any “identified

 waste would appeals these with ahead plowing ,explained As 18. .Opp” .course

 may “‘that appeals addressing in Court this and parties the of” resources “the

 to having “with Action Heritage” burden “and resolved be’” to need never

 4, .Mot” .simultaneously jurisdictions different two in issues same the litigate

 the and ,abeyance for basis paradigmatic a is point commonsense That 15.

 Petroleum .Am .,g.e ,See .here insufficient is it why explains never Center

 Nuclear .v Devia); 2012 .Cir .C.D (390 386-87, 382, d.3F 683 ,EPA .v .Inst

 ,Quinn .v States United); 2007 .Cir .C.D (426 421, d.3F 492 ,n’Comm .Regul

 .(2007 .Cir .C.D (1291 1289, d.3F 475

 the’” ,resources conserve ‘would abeyance “that deny than Rather

 initially Action Heritage because fact that ignore to Court this urges Center

 9
 

 18 of 14 Page 07/12/2022 :Filed #1954546 Document #22-5140 Case USCA

 to appeals these “allow to suit citizen the in proceedings stay to sought

 because motion stay that withdrew Action Heritage But 18-19. .Opp” .proceed

 the dismissed had it that evidence conclusive released finally Commission the

 April in back discretion prosecutorial of basis the on complaint administrative

 .Dkt -1248cv1:22- .suit citizen the authorized had Kelly Judge after only 2021

 observation s’Kelly Judge with and—hand in documents these With 1. at 17

 .Dkt ,suit citizen the in litigated be should and could here issue merits the that

 this that hope the in suit citizen the dismiss to moved Action Heritage—6 at 34

 .appeals these in question intervention the address to need never would Court

 changing for Action Heritage faults repeatedly Center the while So

 motion “suit-citizen and .5,n 14 .Opp” ,intervene to motion “its from positions

 release belated s’FEC the to reacted shifts those 16, .Opp see; 17 .Opp” ,stay to

 been had suit citizen the after reasons of statement and records voting its of

 streamlined more a prefer obviously would Action Heritage .authorized

 procedural a “with left been has it ,observed Kelly Judge as but ,approach

 defend and appear to failure unseemly s’Commission the “by caused” mess

 and activity its hide to scheme a as casts Action Heritage what “and” itself

 concealment new That 7. 2, at 34 .Dkt” .limbo legal in parties regulated leave

 7-9. .Mot see; 17 .Opp .here” reversal abrupt “only the is policy

 10
 18 of 15 Page 07/12/2022 :Filed #1954546 Document #22-5140 Case USCA

 .CENTER THE PREJUDICE NOT WILL ABEYANCE .III

 material any identifies never Center the ,ledger the of side other the On

 the that Given .abeyance from suffer would) public the or (it prejudice

 a filed already has Center the that and ,Center the benefit below decisions

 Judge leave to content been have would it thought have would one ,suit citizen

 nevertheless Center The .possible as long as for undisturbed rulings s’Kelly

 further would here abeyance an “that that claim scratching-head the makes

 even—18 .Opp” ,suit citizen the in claims s’CLC of adjudication the delay

 the of resolution the permit to is motion s’Action Heritage of point the though

 .resolved are appeals these before suit citizen

 could appeals these that be to appears fear real s’Center the ,Ultimately

 definitive a wants it hence and ,suit citizen its for authorization the reverse

 generalized that But .possible as soon as issue that on Court this from answer

 considers Court this whenever present is 18, .Opp” ,finality in interest“

 appeal an allowing justify cannot thus It .motion abeyance an grant to whether

 counsels consideration other every when course normal the in proceed to

 this where decision abeyance no identifies Center the ,Tellingly .otherwise

 .dispositive proved it where one alone let ,mentioned even was interest finality

 .ground new break to one the be should case this why explain it does Nor

 11
 

 

 

 18 of 16 Page 07/12/2022 :Filed #1954546 Document #22-5140 Case USCA

 CONCLUSION

 .motion abeyance s’Action Heritage grant should Court This

 ,submitted Respectfully 2022 12, July :Dated

 Shumate .A Brett /s/

 Shumate .A Brett

 Crosland Stewart .E

 Lucas Brinton

 Kenny .J Stephen

 DAY JONES

 NW .Ave Louisiana 51

 20001 DC ,Washington

 879-3939 (202)

 com.jonesday@bshumate

 Appellant for Counsel

 12
 18 of 17 Page 07/12/2022 :Filed #1954546 Document #22-5140 Case USCA

 COMPLIANCE OF CERTIFICATE

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

 .R .Fed by exempted document the of parts the excluding ,because) C)(2)(d(27

 2481 contains document this ,)1)(e(32 Rule Circuit .C.D and) f(32 .P .App

 .words

 style-type and typeface the with complies document This 2.

 because) 6)(a (and) 5)(a(32 and) E)(1)(d(27 .P .App .R .Fed of requirements

 using typeface spaced proportionally a in prepared been has document this

 .typeface BT Expd Century point14- in Word Microsoft

 Shumate .A Brett /s/

 13
 

 18 of 18 Page 07/12/2022 :Filed #1954546 Document #22-5140 Case USCA

 SERVICE OF CERTIFICATE

 the filed I 2022, July of day th12 this on ,that certifies undersigned The

 which ,system ECF/CM Appellate s’Court this using motion foregoing

 .parties all on service effected

 Shumate .A Brett /s/

 14