- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 20-CV-0809-ABJ

The Hon. Amy Berman Jackson

THE INSTITUTE FOR 

FREE SPEECH’S

MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

Pursuant to LCvR 7(o)(2), the Institute for Free Speech (“IFS” or the “Institute”) 

respectfully submits this Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief. The 

Institute’s brief does not support any party in this case. But “the brief will assist the 

[Court] by presenting ideas, arguments, theories, insights, facts, or data that are 

not to be found in the parties’ briefs.” In re Search of Info. Associated with 

@mac.com that is Stored at Premises Controlled by Apple, Inc., 13 F. Supp. 3d 157, 

167 (D.D.C. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (“In re Search of 

Info.”).

The amicus curiae brief, and a proposed order are attached to this Motion.

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

The Institute is a nonpartisan, nonprofit § 501(c)(3) organization that promotes 

and protects the First Amendment political rights of speech, press, assembly, and 

petition. In addition to scholarly and educational work, the Institute is actively 

involved in targeted litigation against unconstitutional laws at both the state and 

Case 1:20-cv-00809-ABJ Document 22 Filed 08/16/21 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

federal levels. The Institute strives to ensure that the Federal Election Commission 

(“FEC,” or the “Commission”) lawfully enforces federal campaign finance laws. 

A faction of FEC commissioners recently implemented a scheme (the “Scheme”) 

that violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, is an arbitrary and 

capricious application of the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”), and which 

abuses the Commission’s administrative discretion. The Scheme’s goal is to 

manipulate the Court into granting Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment so that 

Plaintiff, and groups like it, can enforce FECA through private litigation. 

IFS moves to submit the attached amicus curiae brief to inform the court about

the Scheme so that it will deny Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. 

ARGUMENT

“An amicus brief should normally be allowed ..., when the amicus has unique 

information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers 

for the parties are able to provide.” Jin v. Ministry of State Sec., 557 F. Supp. 2d

131, 136 (D.D.C. 2008) (citation omitted). Indeed, courts allow “parties to file amicus 

briefs where the brief will assist the judges by presenting ideas, arguments, 

theories, insights, facts, or data that are not to be found in the parties’ briefs.” In re 

Search of Info., 13 F. Supp. 3d at 167 (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

“Courts in this district have granted leave where a movant sought to provide 

information regarding a significant, unclear legal issue and denied leave where a 

movant sought to present arguments and insights that were not relevant to the 

Case 1:20-cv-00809-ABJ Document 22 Filed 08/16/21 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

stage of the litigation.” Wilderness Soc’y v. Trump, No. 17-cv-02587, 2019 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 237858 at *12 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2019) (citing Jin, 557 F. Supp. 2d at 138; In 

re Search of Info., 13 F. Supp. 3d at 167). 

The Institute presents this motion and the attached amicus brief as a true 

“friend of the court,” because it “does not represent the parties but participates only 

for the benefit of the Court.” Jin, 557 F. Supp. 2d at 136 (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). The IFS brief provides important information that will not 

otherwise be presented in this case, see id., which “will benefit the court,” 

Wilderness Soc’y v. Trump, No. 17-cv-02587, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237858 at *12 

(D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2019), by explaining the Scheme and how it violates the Fifth 

Amendment and FECA. 

Because of Plaintiff’s pending motion for default judgment, “the procedural 

posture of the case” is ripe for the submission of IFS’s brief. Id. The brief 

“address[es] [the] limited issue” in Plaintiff’s motion and shows why it should be 

denied. Id. at *13. 

IFS’s “position is not adequately represented by a party” because the Scheme 

benefits Plaintiff and the Commission is absent from this case. LCvR 7(o)(2).

Plaintiff consented to the filing of this brief, subject to LCvR 7(o)(2).

Counsel for Defendant was contacted via email on the morning of August 13, 

2021, to determine whether the FEC consented to the filing of this brief. As of the

afternoon of August 16, 2021, counsel for Defendant has not responded.

The court should exercise its discretion to grant this motion.

Case 1:20-cv-00809-ABJ Document 22 Filed 08/16/21 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

Dated: August 16, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ryan Morrison 

Ryan Morrison 

(DC Bar No. 1660582)

Julie Smith 

(DC Bar No. 435292)

INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH

1150 Connecticut Ave., NW 

Suite 801

Washington, DC 20036

T: 703.894.6800

F: 703.894.6811

E: rmorrison@ifs.org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae 

Case 1:20-cv-00809-ABJ Document 22 Filed 08/16/21 Page 4 of 4