No. 22-5323 __________________________________ UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

 ________________________________________ 

 JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO, 

 Plaintiff-Appellants, 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

 Defendant- Appellee _________________________________________ On Appeal from an Order of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit _________________________________________ PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING 

OR REHEARING EN BANC 

 _________________________________________ 

 

 John Anthony Castro, Pro Se

 J.Castro@JohnCastro.com 

 12 Park Place 

 Mansfield, Texas 76063 

 Tel: (202) 594-4344 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 1 of 22
ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... ii 

Table of Authorities ................................................................................................. iii 

I. STATEMENT REQUIRED BY RULE 35(b) .................................................... 1 

I. A. The Commission’s Administrative Complaint and Enforcement Process ..... 1 

II. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ................................................................ 2 

III. Issue presented .................................................................................................. 3 

IV. Statement of the proceeding ............................................................................. 4 

V. Statements of Necessary Facts ............................................................................ 5 

VI. Argument .......................................................................................................... 8 

A. The Panel’s Holding that Appellee Has Not Shown that He Has Article III 

Standing to Pursue Count II is Contrary to the Plain Meaning of the Statute and 

Raises an Exceptionally Important Question. ......................................................... 8 

VII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................10 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 2 of 22
iii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases

Castro v. FEC, No. CV 22-2176 (RC), 2022 WL 17976630, (D.D.C. Dec. 6, 2022)

 .............................................................................................................................8, 9 

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

Common Cause v. FEC, 842 F.2d 436, 449 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ...............................2, 6 

Democratic Cong. Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 831 F.2d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ...2, 6 

Statutes

5 U.S.C. § 706 ........................................................................................................... 4 

5 U.S.C. § 705 ................................................................................................. 3, 7, 10 

5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ....................................................................................... 3, 7, 10 

52 U.S.C § 30109(a)(8)(C) ........................................................................................ 2 

52 U.S.C. § 30101(2) .................................................................................. 3,7,8,9,10 

52 U.S.C. § 30106(c) ................................................................................................. 1 

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a) (8) ............................................................................................ 4 

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

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2) .........................................................................................1, 6 

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(3) .........................................................................................1, 6 

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

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) ...................................................................................2, 7 

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C) ...................................................................................2, 7 

 ......................................................................................... 6 

 ....................................................................................... 1 

 .................................................................................... 1 

), (a)(5) ............................................................................ 1 

52. U.S.C. § 30109(a)(3) ............................................................................................ 1 

52.U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2) ............................................................................................. 1 

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

Rules

Fed. R. App P. 35 ....................................................................................................... 2 

Fed. R. App P. 40 ....................................................................................................... 2 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 3 of 22
1 

I. STATEMENT REQUIRED BY RULE 35(B) 

Rehearing of this case is warranted in that the panel erred in finding and 

agreeing with the district court that Appellant has not shown that he has Article III 

standing to pursue Count Two of his complaint. 

I. 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. 

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

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 4 of 22
2 

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 

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 

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). 

II. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 

 Pursuant to Fed. R. App P. 35 and 40, JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO 

respectfully petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc. The panel opinion 

seriously erred in: Finding and agreeing with the district court that Appellant has 

not shown that he has Article III standing to pursue Count Two of his complaint. 

 This panel’s decision has exceptional importance because a careful 

application of the canons of statutory construction and interpretation reveals that, 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 5 of 22
3 

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. 

 Panel rehearing or rehearing en banc is warranted and needed. 

III. ISSUE PRESENTED 

1. Whether Plaintiff’s injury was not traceable to the Federal Election 

Commission’s failure to consider an individual’s constitutional eligibility as 

an implied requirement to be a “candidate” as defined in 52 U.S.C. § 

30101(2)? 

2. Whether Plaintiff’s injury was not redressable on the basis that the Federal 

Election Commission purportedly lacks jurisdiction to reject a constitutionally 

ineligible candidate’s filing despite an individual’s constitutional eligibility 

being an implied requirement to be a “candidate” as defined in 52 U.S.C. § 

30101(2)? 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 6 of 22
4 

IV. STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDING 

 This case involves Appellee seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against 

the Federal Election Commission concerning Donald J. Trump’s candidacy for 

President of the United States. Appellant is a U.S. Citizen and a FEC-registered 2024 

Republican primary presidential candidate. On March 23, 2022, Appellant filed an 

administrative complaint with the Federal Election Commission requesting that the 

agency declare Donald Trump a “candidate” within the meaning of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) based on Donald J. Trump’s alleged campaign 

spending and the FEC’s campaign finance rules. The Commission did not act within 

its statutorily prescribed 120-day period. Pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a) (8) and 

the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, Appellant then brought suit. 

Appellant in his complaint brought forward two counts 1) The Federal Election 

Commission require Donald J. Trump to file a statement of candidacy, and 2) reject 

Donald J. Trump’s statement of candidacy based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s 

Disqualification Clause. On November 15, 2022, Donald J. Trump. filed his 

statement of candidacy with the Commission, rendering Count I moot. Appellant 

moved for a temporary restraining order, or in the alternative, a preliminary 

injunction enjoining the agency from accepting Donald J. Trump’s statement of 

candidacy. Appellee states that Count II is based on the legal basis of the Fourteenth 

Amendment’s Disqualification Clause as well as Appellee suffering competitive 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 7 of 22
5 

injury should the Federal Election Commission accept Donald J. Trump’s statement 

of candidacy since he himself is competing in the 2024 Republican presidential 

primary and vying for the same support of donations as Donald J. Trump. See 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction 

at 1, ECF No. 17 and Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in 

Opposition of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 16-17, ECF No. 15. The Federal 

Election Commission sought to dismiss Count II for lack of standing and failure to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Defendant’s Memorandum of 

Points and Authorities Supp. Partial Motion to Dismiss at 10-15, ECF No. 14-1. The 

parties agree that Count I was moot upon Donald J. Trump’s filing of his statement 

of candidacy on November 15, 2022. The District Court stated that Appellant’s 

theory his alleged injury-having to compete with Donald J. Trump-, although is 

viable, is not traceable to the Commission and fails the redressability requirements 

of standing. 

 This panel or judge erroneously determined that the Appellant has not shown 

that he has Article III standing to pursue Count II of his complaint. 

V. STATEMENTS OF NECESSARY FACTS 

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

resolution of private administrative complaints. 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 8 of 22
6 

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. 

), (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 

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 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 9 of 22
7 

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. 

 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. 

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 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). 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 10 of 22
8 

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. 

VI. ARGUMENT 

A. The Panel’s Holding that Appellee Has Not Shown that He Has Article 

III Standing to Pursue Count II is Contrary to the Plain Meaning of the 

Statute and Raises an Exceptionally Important Question. 

The lower court and the panel 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.” 

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 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 11 of 22
9 

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 

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. 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 12 of 22
10 

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 

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? 

VII. CONCLUSION 

For the reason stated above, JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO, respectfully 

request that the Court grant rehearing or rehearing en banc. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 13 of 22
11

Dated April 17, 2023 

By: ___________________________

 John Anthony Castro, Pro Se

 J.Castro@JohnCastro.com

 12 Park Place 

 Mansfield, Texas 76063

 Tel: (202) 594-4344

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 14 of 22
12

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that this petition complies with the type-volume limitations of the 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(B)(3)(A) and 40(b)(2) contains 2493 words, 

excluding the parts exempted by the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(f). 

I also certify that this petition complies with the typeface requirements of 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(6) because it has been prepared in a 

proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in 14-point Times New 

Roman. ________________________

John Anthony Castro

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 15 of 22
13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 17, 2023, a true and accurate copy of the 

foregoing petition with accompanying Exhibits (if any) was served 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.

 __________________

John Anthony Castro

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 16 of 22
ADDENDUM 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Order; Panel Opinion 

B. Certificate As To Parties, Rulings, and Related Cases 

 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 17 of 22
ADDENDUM A 

 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 18 of 22
USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 19 of 22
ADDENDUM B 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 20 of 22
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO 

 Appellant, 

v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

 Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No.: 22-5323 

APPELLANT JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO’S CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, 

RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES 

Pursuant to United States Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), Appellant 

John Anthony Castro submits its Certificate as to Parties, Rulings and Related Cases. 

(A) Parties and Amici. John Anthony Castro is the plaintiff in the district court and

Appellant in this Court. John Anthony Castro, as an individual, certifies that there are 

no parent companies and no publicly held companies to disclose pursuant to Circuit 

Rule 26.1, 

(A) The Federal Election Commission is the defendant in the district court and Appellee

in this Court. 

(B) Rulings Under Review. John Anthony Castro appeals the December 6, 2022 Order

(Doc. 21) of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Contreras, R.) granting defendantappellee Federal Election Commission’s Partial Motion to Dismiss and denying plaintiff-appellant 

John Anthony Castro’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Preliminary Injunction. 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 21 of 22
2 

(C) Related Cases. The appealed ruling has not previously been before this Court or any

other court. There are no related cases pending before this Court or any other court of which 

Appellee is aware. 

Date: April 17, 2023 

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 #1995159 Filed: 04/17/2023 Page 22 of 22