_______________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________ 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1990509 Filed: 03/16/2023 Page 1 of 8 

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED 

No. 22-5323 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

JOHN ANTHONY CASTRO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE 

Lisa J. Stevenson Jacob S. Siler 

Acting General Counsel Assistant General Counsel 

lstevenson@fec.gov jsiler@fec.gov 

Kevin Deeley Shaina Ward 

Associate General Counsel Attorney 

kdeeley@fec.gov sward@fec.gov 

March 16, 2023 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

1050 First Street NE 

Washington, DC 20463 

(202) 694-1650 
USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1990509 Filed: 03/16/2023 Page 2 of 8 

INTRODUCTION 

This case is well-suited for summary affirmance. See Hassan v. Fed. Elec. 

Comm’n, No. 12-5335, 2013 WL 1164506, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 11, 2013) 

(granting FEC’s motion for summary affirmance where plaintiff failed to establish 

Article III standing). Appellant John A. Castro cannot show that his alleged injury, 

to the extent that his Complaint adequately alleged one, was caused by any act or 

alleged inaction by the Federal Election Commission (“Commission” or “FEC”), 

or that any order directed to the Commission could redress it. The Federal 

Election Campaign Act’s (“FECA”) definition of a candidate, set forth in 52 

U.S.C. § 30101(2), does not grant the Commission authority to reject a Statement 

of Candidacy because the candidate is constitutionally ineligible for office. 

Nothing in Castro’s Opposition to the Commission’s Motion for Summary 

Affirmance (“Opp.”) demonstrates otherwise. Furthermore, Castro provides no 

basis to disregard his failure to establish Article III standing, which all plaintiffs 

must have to proceed in federal court. This Court should therefore summarily 

affirm the district court’s grant of the Federal Election Commission’s motion to 

dismiss. 

1 
 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1990509 Filed: 03/16/2023 Page 3 of 8 

ARGUMENT 

I. CASTRO HAS FAILED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY HE COULD NOT 

COMPLY WITH COURT DEADLINES 

As an initial matter, Castro has not responded to this Court’s Order requiring 

him to “show cause . . . why the dispositive motion should not be considered and 

decided without a response.” (Order, Doc. No. 1985132 (Feb. 8, 2023).) Castro’s 

Opposition to the FEC’s Motion for Summary Affirmance was originally due on 

February 2, 2023, however Castro failed to timely file his response to the FEC’s 

Motion, and Castro’s opposition fails to respond to the Court’s order to show cause 

addressing the delay. (See id.)1 Because Castro has provided no explanation for 

his failure to comply with court deadlines or seek an extension, this Court need not 

consider his opposition. See D.C. Cir. Rule 38. 

II. CASTRO LACKS ARTICLE III STANDING 

Even if Castro’s response had been timely submitted, nothing in that 

submission suggests the district court was in error. As discussed in the FEC’s 

Motion, the district court correctly held that the Commission has no authority to 

evaluate a prospective candidate’s eligibility for federal office. As a result, it 

Prior to the expiration of Castro’s original response deadline, counsel for the 

FEC understood that Castro had not immediately received notice that the Motion 

had been filed. Counsel for the FEC unilaterally offered Castro an extension of 

additional time to respond to the FEC’s Motion, but Castro declined and stated that 

he would not be filing a response. 

2 

1 
USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1990509 Filed: 03/16/2023 Page 4 of 8 

cannot in this action take any position on the central question Castro asserts, and 

therefore there is no actual case or controversy between the parties in this case and 

Castro lacks Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 

560-01 (1992). In response to the Commission’s Motion, Castro attempts to 

establish his standing by arguing that he “explicit[ly]” “cited 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2) 

as the FEC’s statutory authority to determine eligibility.” (Opp. at 4, 5.) He 

further asserts that “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.” (Id. at 7.) 

Castro’s assertions are simply wrong. The district court expressly 

considered FECA’s candidacy definition and concluded that provision did not 

support Castro’s argument. (Add. 30 (citing 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2)).) As the 

district court reasoned, Section 30101 simply defines when a person must file a 

statement of candidacy with the Commission and becomes subject to certain of 

FECA’s requirements, it does not address the constitutional eligibility of a federal 

candidate or actions that would disqualify such a candidate, nor does it grant 

authority for the Commission to disqualify a prospective candidate. (Id. at 30-31.) 

As explained by the district court, “[n]othing in the statement of candidacy, FEC 

Form 2, lends credence to Mr. Castro’s belief that it plays a role in determining 

Mr. Trump’s eligibility to run for office.” (Id. at 30.) Castro similarly fails to cite 

3 
USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1990509 Filed: 03/16/2023 Page 5 of 8 

any authority to this Court that would suggest the Commission may make a 

threshold determination of a candidate’s constitutional eligibility for office. As a 

result, Castro “fails the traceability and redressability requirements of standing,” 

because he cannot “show the Court how the Commission’s handling of Mr. 

Trump’s statement of candidacy has any bearing on Mr. Castro’s alleged injury.” 

Id. at 31; see also Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co. v. FERC, 783 F.3d 1270, 1274 (D.C. 

Cir. 2015) (“‘[T]he oldest and most consistent thread in the federal law of 

justiciability is that the federal courts will not give advisory opinions.’” (quoting 

Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96 (1968))). 

In sum, Castro’s response falls far short of establishing the essential 

elements of constitutional standing. Castro cannot show that any FECA provision 

or other authority grants the Commission unilateral authority to disqualify a person 

from running for federal office. And even if Castro was injured, he has failed to 

show that his injury would be redressable by an order of the district court. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should summarily affirm the district 

court’s order granting the Commission’s motion to dismiss Castro’s complaint. 

4 
 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1990509 Filed: 03/16/2023 Page 6 of 8 

Lisa J. Stevenson 

Acting General Counsel 

lstevenson@fec.gov 

Kevin Deeley 

Associate General Counsel 

kdeeley@fec.gov 

Jacob S. Siler 

Assistant General Counsel 

jsiler@fec.gov 

March 16, 2023 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Shaina Ward 

Shaina Ward 

Attorney 

sward@fec.gov 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTAPPELLEE 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

1050 First Street NE 

Washington, DC 20463 

(202) 694-1650 

5 
 

USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1990509 Filed: 03/16/2023 Page 7 of 8 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMIT, 

TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS, AND TYPE-STYLE REQUIREMENTS 

I hereby certify, on this 16th 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 863 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 Times New Roman font. 

/s/ Shaina Ward 

 Shaina Ward 
USCA Case #22-5323 Document #1990509 Filed: 03/16/2023 Page 8 of 8 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 16th day of March, 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.