Case 1:21-cv-00406-TJK Document 24 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 3 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

Defendant, 

HERITAGE ACTION FOR AMERICA, 

Proposed Intervenor-Defendant. 

Case No. 1:21-cv-0406 (TJK) 

EXPEDITED MOTION OF HERITAGE ACTION FOR AMERICA 

TO INTERVENE 

Heritage Action for America (“Heritage Action”) respectfully moves to intervene in this 

case as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) for the purpose of seeking 

reconsideration or appellate review of this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction to issue the order 

dated May 3, 2022. Dkt. No. 23 (“May 3 Order”). That order granted the motion of Plaintiff 

Campaign Legal Center (“CLC”) seeking an order declaring that Defendant Federal Election 

Commission (“FEC”) had failed to comply with this Court’s order dated March 25, 2022, Dkt. No. 

16 (“March 25 Order”), and authorizing a direct lawsuit against Heritage Action. Pl’s Mot. for 

Order Declaring Failure to Conform to Default J. (Apr. 26, 2022), Dkt. No. 21. Once the Court 

issued the May 3 Order, CLC filed a direct lawsuit against Heritage Action in another court in this 

District. See May 3 Order 2 (citing 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C)); Compl., CLC v. Heritage Action 

for Am., No 22-cv-01248-CJN (D.D.C. May 5, 2022), Dkt. No. 1. Heritage Action alternatively 
Case 1:21-cv-00406-TJK Document 24 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 3 

moves for permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(l)(B).1

 Heritage 

Action respectfully requests an expedited ruling on this motion because the Court may lose 

jurisdiction to rule on the motion to intervene when Heritage Action files a notice of appeal. See 

Amarin Pharms. Ireland Ltd. v. FDA, 139 F. Supp. 3d 437, 443 (D.D.C. 2015) (holding that the 

court lost jurisdiction to decide a motion to intervene once a notice of appeal was filed, but issuing 

an indicative ruling under Rule 62.1 that the court would grant the motion to intervene if the D.C. 

Circuit remands for entry of the order). 

POSITION OF THE PARTIES 

Counsel for Heritage Action sought Plaintiff’s consent to this motion, but Plaintiff’s 

counsel stated that Plaintiff opposes this Motion. The FEC has not appeared in this matter and 

there is no counsel of record to notify. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, counsel for 

Heritage Action contacted the FEC’s Office of General Counsel by email, informing the FEC of 

Heritage Action’s intention to file this motion. Counsel for Heritage Action also asked counsel 

for the FEC whether the Commission will appeal the Court’s May 3 order, but the FEC has not 

responded to that inquiry. 

Respectfully submitted, on May 10, 2022. 

/s/ Brett A. Shumate 

Brett A. Shumate (D.C. Bar No. 974673) 

E. Stewart Crosland (D.C. Bar No. 1005353) 

JONES DAY 

51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Telephone: (202) 879-3939 

Facsimile: (202) 626-1700 

Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor-Defendant 

1

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(c) and Local Rule 7(j), a proposed answer 

to the Complaint is attached to this motion. Also attached is a proposed order granting this Motion. 

Heritage Action’s Corporate Disclosure Statement was filed with its amicus brief at Dkt. No. 17-

3, at i. 

2 
 

Case 1:21-cv-00406-TJK Document 24 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on May 10, 2022, I electronically transmitted the attached document 

to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and distribution to all registered 

participants of the CM/ECF System. Attorneys for Plaintiff are registered users of the CM/ECF 

System of this Court. Defendant was served a paper copy of this filing via regular United States 

mail at its address: 

Federal Election Commission 

1050 First Street NE 

Washington, DC 20463 

/s/ Brett A. Shumate 

Brett A. Shumate