Case 1:22-cv-02176-RC Document 20 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 8 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) No.: 22-cv-02176 

v. ) 

) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ) AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION 

) TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS 

Defendant. ) 

) 

PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION 

Defendant has once again mischaracterized the relief sought by Plaintiff. As such, 

Plaintiff submits this Reply to Defendant’s Memorandum in Opposition to accurately and 

thoroughly explain the facts and law applicable in this case. 

I. AGENCY ACTION NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW 

A. THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY HAS AN OBLIGATION TO ENJOIN AGENCY ACTION 

CONTRARY TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION 

Plaintiff does not claim that the Commission has the explicit authority to reject a 

prospective candidate’s filings. Plaintiff asserts that the acceptance of Donald J. Trump’s FEC 

Form 2, Statement of Candidacy, would run afoul of the U.S. Constitution and, as such, would 

constitute agency action “not in accordance with law” that must be enjoined and set aside 

pending the federal question arising under the U.S. Constitution that Donald J. Trump engaged 

in, provided aid to, or provided comfort to the insurrectionists that attacked the United States 

Capitol. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-02176-RC Document 20 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 8 

In response, Defendant FEC claims it does not have the authority to reject a filing. This 

legal argument is identical to the argument made by county employees processing a title to real 

estate that contained a racially restrictive covenant, which the U.S. Supreme Court held 

unconstitutional and reversed in Shelley v. Kraemer.

1 Defendant FEC may not have the 

express authority to reject the filing, but if it is contrary to the U.S. Constitution, this Court has 

a legal obligation to enjoin the agency action that is not in accordance with the law. 

B. ALTERNATIVELY, IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPERLY PROMULGATED REGULATIONS, 

THIS COURT CAN INTERPRET THE TERM “CANDIDATE” AS USED IN FECA 

Alternatively, and only in the alternative and secondary to the primary argument, 

Plaintiff asserts that Donald J. Trump cannot fit into 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2)’s definition of 

“candidate” since he is ineligible to pursue public office. 

In response to this, Defendant claims it does not have the authority to reject a filing and 

self-servingly cites its own non-binding advisory opinion that is not entitled to judicial 

deference since it is not a properly promulgated regulation subject to notice and comment, and, 

as such, is not entitled to Chevron deference with regard to statutory interpretation.

2 Because 

advisory opinions are not entitled to Chevron deference, this Court has the authority to interpret 

52 U.S.C. § 30101(2) and declare that Congress’ use of the term “candidate” implied a 

presumption of regularity that the candidate is not constitutionally ineligible. Based on 

Defendant’s interpretation of 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2), North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un could 

register as a Presidential candidate with the FEC and no one would have standing to stop him 

1 See Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948). 2 Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-02176-RC Document 20 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 8 

until a fellow candidate brought suit at the state-level after both were registered to appear on 

the ballot. Such an interpretation is ludicrous and patently frivolous. 

II. IRREPARABLE HARM 

A. VERIFIED FACTS ARE THE EVIDENCE 

Plaintiff submitted a Verification that declared, under the penalty of perjury, that all 

statements of fact in the Original Complaint, Plaintiff’s Memorandum Of Points And 

Authorities In Opposition To The Motion To Dismiss, and the Memorandum Of Points And 

Authorities In Support of the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (jointly the “NowVerified Original Complaint and Memoranda”) were true and correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1746. 

Facts that are verified under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 are treated as evidence.3 The very 

purpose of verified facts in a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A) is to make the facts reliable evidence upon which the Court can rely for 

the purpose of granting immediate injunctive relief.4 

B. INCREASED COMPETITION INJURY 

The Now-Verified Original Complaint and Memoranda made it clear that established 

case law has recognized that agency action that increases competition constitutes irreparable 

harm. Defendant’s assertion that it is powerless to redress Plaintiff’s grievances further 

3 See In re Veiga, 746 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2010); Gonzales v. Brevard, 531 F. Supp. 2d 1019 (W.D. Wis. 

2008); Hayes v. Compass Grp. USA, Inc., 343 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D. Conn. 2004); Davis v. Frapolly, 756 F. 

Supp. 1065 (N.D. Ill. 1991); Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. U.S. Air, 853 F. Supp. 656 (E.D.N.Y. 1994); In 

re McGuire, 450 B.R. 68 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2011); Lelieve v. Oroso, 846 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2012). 4 See Gibbs v. Titelman, 369 F. Supp. 38 (E.D. Pa. 1973), rev'd on other grounds, 502 F.2d 1107 (3d Cir. 1974). 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-02176-RC Document 20 Filed 11/17/22 Page 4 of 8 

illustrates the irreparability of the Increase Competition Injury. Evidence is not required to 

support the obvious fact that agency action has increased competition for Plaintiff. 

C. COMPETITIVE FINANCIAL INJURY 

With regard to the competitive financial injury, Plaintiff asserts that its verified 

statement that it would suffer a competitive financial injury coupled with the obviousness of 

that assertion is sufficient for this Court to apply common sense to conclude this is true.’

III. DEFENDANT CANNOT LITIGATE FOR TRUMP 

Defendant’s third and final argument is that injunctive relief would be inequitable to 

the constitutional rights of Donald J. Trump. Defendant FEC does not have standing to assert 

any defenses on behalf of Mr. Trump. 

Furthermore, Mr. Trump is not a party to this suit and has intentionally failed to Motion 

to Intervene As of Right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) under the failed assumption this 

will permit an appeal for lack of notice. Defendant FEC has notified Donald J. Trump of this 

litigation, it is public record, and Mr. Trump has actual or constructive notice of the ongoing 

litigation. His strategic silence and avoidance of this case cannot be considered by this Court 

until he properly motions to intervene. 

IV. THE SLIDING SCALE STANDARD 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has not formally abandoned the “sliding 

scale” standard. In Archdiocese of Washington, the D.C. Circuit expressly held that the 

“instant case likewise ‘presents no occasion for the court to decide whether the ‘sliding scale’

approach remains valid.”5 This has even been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 

5 See Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 897 F.3d 314, 334 (D.C. Cir. 2018) 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-02176-RC Document 20 Filed 11/17/22 Page 5 of 8 

Winter case: “Consistent with equity's character, courts do not insist that litigants uniformly 

show a particular, predetermined quantum of probable success or injury before awarding 

equitable relief. Instead, courts have evaluated claims for equitable relief on a ‘sliding scale,’

sometimes awarding relief based on a lower likelihood of harm when the likelihood of success 

is very high. This Court has never rejected that formulation, and I do not believe it does so 

today.”6 Therefore, in effect, Defendant FEC is asking for a change to the existing law since 

all legal authorities on which it relies were statements in dicta. 

V. THE ALLEGED “DELAY” WAS DUE TO LACK OF RIPENESS 

Defendant claims there can be no emergency since Plaintiff delayed in seeking 

injunctive relief. Because Donald J. Trump was not yet a “candidate,” Count II was not ripe. 

This is precisely why Plaintiff referred to Count II as a “contingent claim under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 18(b).” Had Plaintiff motioned for injunctive relief on Count II prior to Mr. Trump’s 

candidacy announcement, it would have been dismissed as not yet ripe. 

This contention by Defendant is bordering on sanctionable frivolity under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 18(b). Plaintiff reminds Defendant of its duty of candor to this Honorable Court. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

Plaintiff asks this Court to grant the temporary injunctive relief sought, or, in the 

alternative, to grant a hearing and expedited briefing for a preliminary injunction at which 

Donald J. Trump can motion to intervene. 

6 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 51 (2008) (Ginsburg and Souter, dissenting). 

5 
Case 1:22-cv-02176-RC Document 20 Filed 11/17/22 Page 6 of 8 

Respectfully submitted, 

____________________________ 

John Anthony Castro 

12 Park Place 

Mansfield, TX 76063 

Dated: November 17, 2022 

By 

Tel. (202) 594-4344 

J.Castro@JohnCastro.com 

Plaintiff, Pro Se 

6 
 

Case 1:22-cv-02176-RC Document 20 Filed 11/17/22 Page 7 of 8 

VERIFICATION 

I, John Anthony Castro, declare as follows: 

1. I am the plaintiff in the present case, a U.S. citizen, and an FEC-registered 

Republican primary presidential candidate (Candidate FEC ID Number P40007320) 

for the 2024 Presidential Election. 

2. The FEC’s acceptance of Donald J. Trump’s Form 2, Statement of Candidacy, would 

increase political competition and increased financial competition thereby injuring 

me. 

3. The FEC’s unlawful acceptance and processing of Donald J. Trump’s Form 2, 

Statement of Candidacy, would render me unable to raise campaign funds and to 

reshape the Republican Party due to Mr. Trump’s obvious control and influence over 

the Republican Party. 

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I verify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is 

true and correct, including the incorporation of all matters referenced in the Original 

Complaint. 

Executed on November 17, 2022. 

________________________________ 

John Anthony Castro 

7 
 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-02176-RC Document 20 Filed 11/17/22 Page 8 of 8 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing document was filed 

electronically (via CM/ECF) on November 17, 2022. I further certify that a true and accurate 

copy of the foregoing document was served by electronic mail on the following recipients on 

November 17, 2022: 

Federal Election Commission 

Litigation Division 

Attorney Shaina Ward 

1050 First Street NE 

Washington, DC 20463 

(202) 694-1650 

/s/ John Anthony Castro_ 

John Anthony Castro 

8