USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 1 of 25 

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED 

Nos. 22-5140, 22-5167 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

Defendant. 

HERITAGE ACTION FOR AMERICA, 

Movant-Appellant. 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia, No. 1:21-cv-406-TJK 

Before the Honorable Timothy J. Kelly 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE AND DISMISSAL 

FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

Adav Noti 

Kevin P. Hancock 

Molly E. Danahy 

Hayden Johnson 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER 

1101 14th St. NW, Suite 400 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 736-2200 

mdanahy@campaignlegalcenter.org 

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 2 of 25 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................iii 

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................... v 

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

BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 2 

LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................................................ 5 

ARGUMENT............................................................................................................ 6 

I. The Court Should Summarily Affirm the District Court’s Denial of 

the Motion to Intervene for Untimeliness ................................................. 6 

II. The Court Should Dismiss Heritage Action’s Purported Merits 

Appeal for Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction .............................................. 13 

CONCLUSION....................................................................................................... 14 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE...................................................................... 16 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE............................................................................... 17 

ADDENDUM......................................................................................................... 18 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 3 of 25 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

*Authorities upon which appellee principally relies are marked with an asterisk 

Cases: Page 

*Alternative Research & Development Foundation v. Veneman, 

262 F.3d 406 (D.C. Cir. 2001)........................................................................... 14 

Amador County, California v. United States Department of the Interior, 

772 F.3d 901 (D.C. Cir. 2014)........................................................................... 12 

Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Herman, 

166 F.3d 1248 (D.C. Cir. 1999)........................................................................... 7 

Blumenthal v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

2004 WL 1946450 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 1, 2004)..................................................... 14 

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

142 S. Ct. 1002 (2022)................................................................................ 10, 13 

Campaign Legal Center v. Heritage Action, No. 1:22-cv-1248 

(D.D.C. May 5, 2022).......................................................................................... 3 

Cascade Broadcasting Group Ltd. v. F.C.C., 822 F.2d 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ....... 5 

*Defenders of Wildlife v. Perciasepe, 714 F.3d 1317 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ................. 13 

Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 2013 WL 12316848 (D.D.C. July 17, 2013) ....... 8 

Dimond v. District of Columbia, 792 F.2d 179 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ........................... 10 

*Karsner v. Lothian, 532 F.3d 876 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ............................................... 7 

*Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301 (1988)............................................................. 13, 14 

National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. New York, 

413 U.S. 345 (1973) ............................................................................................ 6 

Paisley v. Central Intelligence Agency, 724 F.2d 201 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ................ 12 

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Securities Investor Protection 

Corporation, 2013 WL 1164306 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 12, 2013)............................... 6 

Smoke v. Norton, 252 F.3d 468 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ................................................... 14 

iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 4 of 25 

Stewart v. Rubin, 124 F.3d 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ................................................... 7 

Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Company, 487 U.S. 312 (1988) .............................. 13 

United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company, 

642 F.2d 1285 (D.C. Cir. 1980)......................................................................... 10 

*United States v. British American Tobacco Australia Services, Ltd., 

437 F.3d 1235 (D.C. Cir. 2006)................................................................. 6, 8, 14 

United States v. Scantlebury, 921 F.3d 241 (D.C. Cir. 2019) .................................. 5 

Statutes: 

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C) ...................................................................................... 3 

Regulations and Rulemaking Documents: 

D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice & Internal Procedures, § VIII.G....................... 5 

Fed. R. App. P. 3..................................................................................................... 13 

Fed. R. App. P. 4..................................................................................................... 13 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24...................................................................................................... 6 

iv 
 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 5 of 25 

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS 

CLC Campaign Legal Center 

FEC Federal Election Commission 

FECA Federal Election Campaign Act 

v 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 6 of 25 

INTRODUCTION 

The Court should summarily dispose of these consolidated appeals because 

the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that non-partyAppellant Heritage Action for America’s (“Heritage Action”) post-judgment motion 

to intervene was untimely, and because, as a non-party, Heritage Action has no right 

to appeal the merits determination below. 

For nearly four years, Plaintiff-Appellee Campaign Legal Center (“CLC”) has 

sought to hold Heritage Action accountable for violating federal campaign finance 

laws when it spent hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting congressional 

candidates in 2018 without disclosing the sources of its funding. After years of 

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

which is tasked with enforcing the federal campaign finance laws, CLC filed suit 

against the Commission for unlawful delay on February 16, 2021. Over a year later, 

after the FEC failed to appear and defend the lawsuit, CLC won default judgment 

against the agency. Six weeks later, the case was terminated and CLC exercised its 

right under the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) to file a citizen suit against 

Heritage Action to enforce the law. 

Only then did Heritage Action belatedly move to intervene in this matter, for 

the sole purpose of raising arguments it could have raised at the outset of the case, 

and which it had already unsuccessfully advanced a month earlier as amicus curiae, 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 7 of 25 

in an attempt to re-litigate the merits of the settled judgment below. Before the 

district court denied its motion to intervene, Heritage Action filed a purported notice 

of appeal seeking to challenge the judgment below despite not being a party. 

Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to 

intervene as untimely, that ruling should be summarily affirmed. And because the 

Court lacks appellate jurisdiction over a nonparty’s attempt to appeal, the remainder 

of this case should be summarily dismissed. 

BACKGROUND1

Nearly four years ago, CLC filed an administrative complaint with the FEC 

alleging that Heritage Action violated FECA by failing to disclose its donors despite 

spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on election advertising in support of 

congressional candidates in 2018. ECF 1-1. Nearly two-and-a-half years later, with 

no indication the FEC had acted on its complaint, CLC filed suit against the 

Commission alleging unlawful delay. ECF 1. The FEC failed to appear and defend 

the suit. ECF 9. Another year passed. Then, on March 25, 2022, the district court, 

finding that CLC’s allegations against Heritage Action were credible and outlined a 

The applicable statutory and regulatory background is set forth in CLC’s 

Opposition to Heritage Action’s pending motion for an abeyance. See Pl.-Appellee 

CLC’s Response in Opp’n to Mot. to Hold Appeals in Abeyance at 3-8 (“Opp. to 

Abeyance”). Citations to the record below are designated by ECF number. 

2 

1
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 8 of 25 

legitimate threat to the health of our electoral process, entered default judgment 

against the FEC and ordered the Commission to take action within 30 days. ECF 16. 

On the final day for the FEC to comply with the court’s order, and after taking 

no action to defend its alleged interests during the fourteen months that CLC’s 

lawsuit against the FEC was pending, Heritage Action sought leave to appear as 

amicus curiae. ECF 17. As amicus, Heritage Action submitted a brief advancing the 

same arguments it now seeks to raise on appeal. ECF 22.2 The next day, CLC filed 

a motion seeking an order declaring that the FEC had failed to conform with the 

Court’s order within 30 days and confirming CLC’s right to file a citizen suit against 

Heritage Action under FECA. ECF 21; see also 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C). The 

Court granted CLC’s motion on May 3, 2022 and terminated the lawsuit the next 

day. ECF 23; May 4, 2022 Minute Order. Pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C), 

CLC filed its FECA citizen suit against Heritage Action on May 5, 2022. See 

Campaign Legal Ctr. v. Heritage Action, No. 1:22-cv-1248 (D.D.C. May 5, 2022). 

Five days later, Heritage Action moved for post-judgment intervention in the 

closed case below for purposes of seeking reconsideration or appealing the Court’s 

May 3 Order. ECF 24. Ten days after that, while the motion to intervene was still 

In granting leave for Heritage Action to appear as amicus, the district court 

noted that Heritage Action “is not a party to this case, so to the extent the brief . . . 

seeks affirmative relief, it is improper.” See Apr. 27, 2022 Minute Order. The district 

court further noted that “it has already decided the issue the brief addresses— 

whether the FEC acted ‘contrary to law’ under FECA.” Id. 

3 

2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 9 of 25 

pending, Heritage Action filed a notice of appeal of the district court’s May 3 Order 

declaring the FEC had failed to conform and acknowledging CLC’s right to sue 

Heritage Action. ECF 26. The appeal was docketed as Case No. 22-5140. 

After holding a status conference at which CLC and Heritage Action were 

both heard on the intervention motion, the district court denied the motion as 

untimely. ECF 34.

3 The court found that Heritage Action did not move to intervene 

“as soon as it became clear that its interests would no longer be protected by the 

parties in this case.” Id. at 3-4. Thus, the court saw “no reason to depart from what 

usually happens when a party moves to intervene after passing on a clear opportunity 

for pre-judgment intervention.” Id. at 3 (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted). The court noted that “the Clerk’s entry of default and CLC’s motion for 

default judgment made clear by May 2021 . . . that no party would be protecting 

Heritage Action’s interests.” Id. at 4. Because Heritage Action waited “until more 

than a year after CLC filed suit, almost a year after CLC moved for default judgment, 

and more than a month after the Court entered default judgment,” the court found 

the motion untimely. Id. The district court further found that Heritage Action’s 

primary purpose for intervening—reconsideration of settled issues in the case—also 

weighed against the timeliness of its motion. Id. at 4-5. Moreover, the court noted 

The underlying ruling denying Heritage Action’s motion to intervene, ECF 

34, can be found in Case No. 22-5167, where it was filed by Heritage Action on June 

23, 2022. 

4 

3
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 10 of 25 

that Heritage Action could assert its alleged interests elsewhere, including in CLC’s 

ongoing FECA citizen suit against Heritage Action. Id. at 5. Finally, the district court 

found that allowing Heritage Action to intervene post-judgment would prejudice 

CLC with further unjustified delay. Id. at 6-7. 

Two days later, Heritage Action noticed its appeal of the denial of 

intervention, ECF 35, which was docketed as Case No. 22-5167 and consolidated 

with the earlier appeal. 

LEGAL STANDARDS 

“[M]otions for summary disposition will be granted where the merits of the 

appeal or petition for review are so clear that plenary briefing, oral argument, and 

the traditional collegiality of the decisional process would not affect [the Court’s] 

decision.” Cascade Broad. Grp. Ltd. v. F.C.C., 822 F.2d 1172, 1174 (D.C. Cir. 1987) 

(citation and quotations omitted). “Parties are encouraged to file such motions where 

a sound basis exists for summary disposition.” D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice & 

Internal Procedures, § VIII.G. 

The Court reviews a motion to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction de 

novo pursuant to its “special obligation to satisfy itself . . . of its own jurisdiction.” 

United States v. Scantlebury, 921 F.3d 241, 246 (D.C. Cir. 2019). 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 11 of 25 

ARGUMENT 

The Court should summarily dispose of Heritage Action’s consolidated 

appeals. First, the Court should summarily affirm the district court’s denial of 

Heritage Action’s motion to intervene because the court did not abuse its discretion 

in finding that the post-judgment motion was untimely. Second, the Court should 

dismiss the remainder of this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because 

Heritage Action is not a party to this case. 

I. The Court Should Summarily Affirm the District Court’s Denial of the 

Motion to Intervene for Untimeliness. 

Intervention requires, among other things, a “timely motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

24(a)-(b). Whether a motion to intervene is timely “is to be determined by the 

[district] court in the exercise of its sound discretion; unless that discretion is abused, 

the court’s ruling will not be disturbed on review.” NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 

345, 366 (1973); see also United States v. Brit. Am. Tobacco Australia Servs., Ltd., 

437 F.3d 1235, 1238 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“We review the District Court’s denial of 

intervention for untimeliness under the abuse of discretion standard.”). 

Applying this lenient standard of review, this Court has summarily affirmed 

district court denials of motions to intervene for untimeliness on numerous 

occasions. See, e.g., SEC v. Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp., No. 12-5304, 2013 WL 1164306, 

at *1 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 12, 2013) (granting summary affirmance where “[a]ppellant 

has not shown that the district court erred in denying his untimely motion to 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 12 of 25 

intervene”); Stewart v. Rubin, 124 F.3d 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (Table Op.) (granting 

summary affirmance because “the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding 

that the motion to intervene . . . was untimely”). 

The Court should do the same here. In determining whether a motion to 

intervene is timely, district courts must consider “all the circumstances, especially 

weighing the factors of time elapsed since the inception of the suit, the purpose for 

which intervention is sought, the need for intervention as a means of preserving the 

applicant’s rights, and the probability of prejudice to those already parties in the 

case.” Karsner v. Lothian, 532 F.3d 876, 886 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). 

Moreover, as the Supreme Court has recently recognized, “[t]he ‘most important 

circumstance relating to timeliness is’ whether [the movant] ‘sought to intervene as 

soon as it became clear that [its] interests would no longer be protected by the parties 

in the case.” ECF 34 at 4 (quoting Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Ctr., P.S.C., 

142 S. Ct. 1002, 1012 (2022)). Where, as here, the movant first seeks intervention 

after judgment, there is a “presumption that post-judgment motions to intervene will 

be denied.” Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Herman, 166 F.3d 1248, 

1257 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 

Applying this standard, the district court acted well within its discretion to 

deny intervention. First, as the district court observed, Heritage Action passed on 

clear opportunities for pre-judgment intervention, as it “did not move to intervene 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 13 of 25 

until more than a year after CLC filed suit, almost a year after CLC moved for default 

judgment, and more than a month after the Court entered default judgment.” ECF 34 

at 3-4. Far shorter delays between the filing of suit and a motion to intervene have 

been deemed untimely in this Circuit. See, e.g., Brit. Am. Tobacco, 437 F.3d at 1239 

(six months); Defs. Of Wildlife v. Salazar, No. 12-cv-1833 (ABJ), 2013 WL 

12316848, at *2 (D.D.C. July 17, 2013) (eight months). 

Second, the district court explained that Heritage Action’s lengthy delay was 

unjustified since it failed to seek intervention “‘as soon as it became clear that [its] 

interests would no longer be protected by’” the FEC, which never appeared in the 

case. ECF 34 at 4 (quoting Cameron, 142 S. Ct. at 1012) (alteration in original; 

internal quotation marks omitted). As the district court explained, while Heritage 

Action waited until May 2022 to move to intervene, 

both the Clerk’s entry of default and CLC’s motion for default 

judgment made clear by May 2021—long before an appeal was even 

an option—that no party would be protecting Heritage Action's 

interests. At the very least, the vulnerability of Heritage Action's 

interests would have been clear in March 2022, when the Court found 

that the Commission's failure to act was contrary to law and entered 

default judgment. 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 14 of 25 

Id. (citation omitted). For this reason, the district court concluded, Heritage Action 

was unjustified in waiting until May 2022 to see if the FEC would finally appear in 

the case and appeal before attempting to intervene. See id.4

The district court was correct and did not abuse its discretion in rejecting 

Heritage Action’s claim that its delay was justified based on purportedly new 

information it had only recently obtained through FOIA, because Heritage Action 

“did not file a FOIA request until after the Court granted default judgment” on 

March 25, 2022.

5 ECF 34 at 4. By that point, “the vulnerability of Heritage Action’s 

interests would have been clear.” Id. And yet, Heritage Action waited another month 

before first seeking to appear in the case, and it did so not as an intervenor, but as an 

amicus curiae. See supra p. 2. 

Third, the district court was correct and did not abuse its discretion in finding 

that Heritage Action’s purpose for intervention further supported denying the motion 

as untimely. As the district court explained, Heritage Action’s primary goal in 

4 This conclusion is correct especially considering Heritage Action’s 

categorical admission to the district court that “the FEC cannot adequately represent 

Heritage Action’s interests” in litigation because it “is a regulatory agency in a 

position to regulate and sanction Heritage Action.” ECF 24-1 at 17-19. 

5 The court found that there was “no reason to believe Heritage Action could 

not have brought [the relevant information] to the Court before it entered judgment.” 

ECF 34 at 5 n.2 (emphasis in original). That “Heritage Action received [the 

requested records] only recently” is “because it asked for them only recently.” Id. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 15 of 25 

attempting to intervene was “to reopen the settled issues in the case” by seeking 

reconsideration of the Court’s May 3, 2022 judgment. ECF 34 at 5. Relitigating a 

case, even under an alleged jurisdictional theory, weighs against finding a postjudgment motion timely. See id. (citing United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 642 

F.2d 1285, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 

908 (D.C. Cir. 1977)). As the district court noted, Heritage Action “could have 

moved to intervene long ago” for this purpose given that the FEC records upon 

which Heritage Action bases its alleged jurisdictional argument have existed since 

April 2021. See id. at 5 n.2. 

Heritage Action’s alternative purpose of intervening to appeal also did not 

render its motion timely. As the district court found, the FEC’s May 2021 default 

made it clear, long before Heritage Action attempted to intervene, that the agency 

would not be representing any interests—its own or Heritage Action’s—whether at 

trial or on appeal. See ECF 34 at 4 (citing Campaign Legal Ctr. v. FEC, 334 F.R.D. 

1, 6 (D.D.C. 2019) (“[T]here can be no question that a defaulting defendant [FEC] 

will not adequately represent [the respondents’] interests.”)).6

Courts generally allow post-judgment intervention to appeal only where “the 

potential inadequacy of representation came into existence only at the appellate 

stage,” Dimond v. D.C., 792 F.2d 179, 193 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (emphasis added), such 

as where a party who appeared and litigated the case before the trial court decides 

post-judgment not to appeal, see, e.g., Cameron, 142 S. Ct. at 1012; Am. Tel. & Tel. 

Co., 642 F.2d at 1295. Here, the FEC never appeared at all. 

10 

6
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 16 of 25 

Fourth, the district court determined that denying intervention would not 

deprive Heritage Action of its opportunity to assert its purported interests. ECF 24 

at 5-6. The court suggested that “Heritage Action can advance the same 

jurisdictional arguments in [CLC’s citizen suit] that it wants to make here.” Id. at 6. 

Indeed, Heritage Action has already informed this Court that it plans to do just that. 

See Appellant’s Mot. to Hold Appeals in Abeyance at 14 (asking this Court to hold 

these appeals in abeyance while it attempts to relitigate the “common issue[]” of 

whether the FEC’s delay was contrary to law in Campaign Legal Ctr. v. Heritage 

Action) (hereafter, “Abeyance Mot.”);

7 but see Opp. to Abeyance Mot. at 13-15 

(opposing abeyance inter alia on grounds that these appeals are ripe for summary 

disposition). 

Finally, the district court found that Heritage Action’s “delay in moving for 

intervention will prejudice CLC.” ECF 34 at 6 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

This Court has warned of “the evils of permitting post-judgment intervention,” 

which effectively allows the intervenor to “reap[] the benefits of waiting to see 

whether [the Court’s] judgment would be adverse, while imposing serious costs 

Heritage Action’s motion for an abeyance further undermines its own 

arguments in favor of intervention here. In its motion to intervene, Heritage Action 

claimed it had standing and a concrete legal interest in intervening in this action to 

avoid being forced to defend itself in the citizen suit brought by CLC. ECF 24-1 at 

9-10, 16-17. But now, Heritage Action seeks to postpone this Court’s review of the 

denial of its motion to intervene so that it can defend itself in that same citizen suit. 

Abeyance Mot. at 14. 

11 

7
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 17 of 25 

upon the parties and upon the courts,” including spending “further time and 

resources relitigating” the merits of the case. Paisley v. C.I.A., 724 F.2d 201, 203 

(D.C. Cir. 1984). Here, as the district court recognized, reopening the settled issues 

in this case would “likely require factfinding and argument,” and “would mean 

further delay on the adjudication of claims that have been pending since CLC first 

filed its administrative complaint in 2018 and are now the subject of the new 

lawsuit.” ECF 34 at 6; cf. Amador Cnty., Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 772 F.3d 

901, 905 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (denying intervention where it “would delay resolution of 

the merits,” require “reopening discovery,” and “revisit[ing] issues that ha[ve] 

already been decided”). Not only that, but further delay would exacerbate the harms 

already arising from what the district court described as the “legitimate threat to the 

health of our electoral process” posed by the campaign finance violations alleged 

against Heritage Action. ECF 16 at 2. 

In sum, the district court applied each of the timeliness factors, examined all 

of the relevant circumstances, and did not abuse its discretion in correctly concluding 

that Heritage Action’s post-judgment motion to intervene was untimely. The Court 

should summarily affirm.

8

As CLC argued before the district court, Heritage Action’s motion to 

intervene failed to satisfy Rule 24 on numerous grounds, including untimeliness. See 

ECF 30 at 7-29. Because the District Court denied Heritage Action’s motion as 

12 

8
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 18 of 25 

II. The Court Should Dismiss Heritage Action’s Purported Merits Appeal 

for Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction. 

“The rule that only parties to a lawsuit, or those that properly become parties, 

may appeal an adverse judgment, is well settled.” Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 

304 (1988) (per curiam) (citations omitted). This well-settled rule is codified in the 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which specify that only a “party or parties” 

are entitled to timely appeal certain district court orders. Fed. R. App. P. 3(b)-(c), 

4(a)(4)-(6). The Supreme Court has interpreted these requirements as a 

“jurisdictional threshold.” Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 315 

(1988). Accordingly, “a nonparty,” such as Heritage Action, “[can]not notice an 

appeal under Rules 3 and 4” but must instead “pursue intervention—the requisite 

method for a nonparty to become a party to a lawsuit.” Cameron, 142 S. Ct. at 1015 

(Thomas, J., concurring) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 

Because the district court correctly denied its motion to intervene, Heritage 

Action is not entitled to an appeal of the merits judgment below, and the appeal 

docketed as No. 22-5140 should be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See 

Defs. of Wildlife v. Perciasepe, 714 F.3d 1317, 1328 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“Because a 

party unsuccessfully appealing a denial of intervention is not a ‘party,’ it may not 

obtain review of any district court holding other than the denial of intervention.”); 

untimely, CLC seeks summary affirmance on that ground only, without waiver of 

its arguments that Heritage Action failed to satisfy other requirements of Rule 24. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 19 of 25 

see also Brit. Am. Tobacco, 437 F.3d at 1240 (same); Blumenthal v. FERC, No. 03-

1066, 2004 WL 1946450, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 1, 2004) (same); Alternative Rsch. 

& Dev. Found. v. Veneman, 262 F.3d 406, 411 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (same); Smoke v. 

Norton, 252 F.3d 468, 471 n.* (D.C. Cir. 2001) (same).

9

CONCLUSION 

In sum, the Court should summarily affirm the district court’s denial of 

Heritage Action’s post-judgment motion to intervene for untimeliness since the 

district court’s ruling was correct and clearly not an abuse of discretion. Because 

Heritage Action is a non-party, the Court should also dismiss its attempted appeal of 

the district court’s May 3, 2022 order for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

10 

Date: July 8, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Molly E. Danahy 

9 Notably, Heritage Action’s attempt to appeal the district court’s merits rulings 

is ineffective regardless of its right to intervene. Heritage Action did not have any 

right to appeal until the court denied intervention, rendering its May 20 notice of 

appeal ineffective, and it failed to include the merits rulings in its notice appealing 

the denial of intervention. ECF 35; see Marino, 484 U.S. at 304 (“The rule that only 

parties to a lawsuit, or those that properly become parties, may appeal an adverse 

judgment, is well settled.”); but see Alternative Rsch. Dev. Found., 262 F.3d at 411 

(holding that appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals of denial of intervention 

as of right). 

10 Even assuming arguendo that this Court had appellate jurisdiction over the 

appeal in case No. 22-5140, that appeal would lack merit, for the reasons CLC would 

demonstrate in full briefing on the merits if such briefing were deemed necessary. 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 20 of 25 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER 

Adav Noti 

Kevin P. Hancock 

Molly E. Danahy 

Hayden Johnson 

1101 14th Street, NW, St. 400 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 736-2000 

anoti@campaignlegalcenter.org 

khancock@campaignlegalcenter.org 

mdanahy@campaignlegalcenter.org 

hjohnson@campaignlegalcenter.org 

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 21 of 25 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 

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

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

P. 32(f) and D.C. Cir. Rule 32(e)(1), this document contains 3554 words. 

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

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

been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in 14-point 

Times New Roman style. 

/s/ Molly E. Danahy 

Molly E. Danahy 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 22 of 25 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that I filed the foregoing document using this 

Court’s CM/ECF system, which effected service on all parties, on July 8, 2022. 

/s/ Molly E. Danahy 

Molly E. Danahy 

17 
USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 23 of 25 

ADDENDUM 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 24 of 25 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

Campaign Legal Center, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

Federal Election Commission, 

Defendant, 

Heritage Action for America, 

Movant-Appellant. 

Nos. 22-5140, 22-5167 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER’S CERTIFICATE OF PARTIES 

AND RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

(A) Parties and Amici. Campaign Legal Center (“CLC”) is the plaintiff in 

the district court and appellee in this Court. CLC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 

corporation that works to protect and strengthen the U.S. democratic process across 

all levels of government, including by supporting campaign finance reform through 

litigation, policy analysis, and public education. 

The Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) is the defendant in the district 

court but defaulted and has not appeared in the district court or in this Court. Heritage 

Action for America (“Heritage Action”), which was not a party in the district court, 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1954199 Filed: 07/08/2022 Page 25 of 25 

was a movant in the district court and is the appellant in this Court. Heritage Action 

and the Institute for Free Speech appeared as amici curiae in the district court. 

(B) Disclosure Statement. Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 26.1, Appellee CLC 

makes the following disclosure: CLC is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan, nonprofit 

organization, that has no parent corporation, does not issue stock, and in which no 

publicly held corporation has any form of ownership interest. 

Date: July 8, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Molly E. Danahy 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER 

Adav Noti 

Kevin P. Hancock 

Molly E. Danahy 

Hayden Johnson 

1101 14th Street, NW, St. 400 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(212) 736-2000 

anoti@campaignlegalcenter.org 

khancock@campaignlegalcenter.org 

mdanahy@campaignlegalcenter.org 

hjohnson@campaignlegalcenter.org 

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee 

20