USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 1 of 25 

[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED] 

Nos. 22-5140, 22-5167 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Defendant-Appellee, 

HERITAGE ACTION FOR AMERICA, 

Movant-Appellant. 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

OPPOSED MOTION TO HOLD APPEALS IN ABEYANCE 

Brett A. Shumate 

E. Stewart Crosland 

Brinton Lucas 

Stephen J. Kenny 

JONES DAY 

51 Louisiana Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

(202) 879-3939 

bshumate@jonesday.com 

Counsel for Appellant 
USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 2 of 25 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ii 

INTRODUCTION

ADDENDUM 

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

BACKGROUND......................................................................................................4 

ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................14 

CONCLUSION......................................................................................................16 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE................................................................17 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..........................................................................18 

i 
USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 3 of 25 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Page(s) 

CASES 

Basardh v. Gates, 

545 F.3d 1068 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ......................................................................... 14 

Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. FEC, 

164 F. Supp. 3d 113 (D.D.C. 2015) .................................................................... 7 

Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. FEC, 

243 F. Supp. 3d 91 (D.D.C. 2017) ...................................................................... 7 

Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. FEC, 

993 F.3d 880 (D.C. Cir. 2021)..................................................................... 2, 5, 7 

Common Cause v. FEC, 

842 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1988)............................................................................. 5 

Crossroads Grassroots Pol’y Strategies v. FEC, 

788 F.3d 312 (D.C. Cir. 2015)............................................................................. 5 

Democratic Cong. Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 

831 F.2d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ........................................................................... 7 

Heckler v. Chaney, 

470 U.S. 821 (1985) ........................................................................................ 7, 11 

Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. SEC, 

800 F.3d 518 (D.C. Cir. 2015)........................................................................... 14 

Wheaton Coll. v. Sebelius, 

703 F.3d 551 (D.C. Cir. 2012)........................................................................... 15 

STATUTES 

52 U.S.C. § 30104 ..................................................................................................... 9 

52 U.S.C. § 30106 ................................................................................................. 4, 5 

52 U.S.C. § 30107 ..................................................................................................... 5 

52 U.S.C. § 30109 ............................................................................. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15 

Pub. L. No. 92-225, 86 Stat. 3 (1972) ...................................................................... 4 

ii 
USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 4 of 25 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

(continued) 

Page(s) 

OTHER AUTHORITIES 

11 C.F.R. § 111.9 ......................................................................................................6 

Shane Goldmacher, Democrats’ Improbable New F.E.C. Strategy: 

11 C.F.R. § 111.20 ....................................................................................................6 

More Deadlock Than Ever, N.Y. TIMES (June 8, 2021) .................................8 

Matter Under Review 5024 (Nov. 4, 2003) ............................................................7 

iii 
USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 5 of 25 

INTRODUCTION 

In February 2021, Campaign Legal Center sued the Federal Election 

Commission (FEC) for allegedly failing to act on the Center’s administrative 

complaint against Heritage Action for America. After the Commission failed 

to appear or defend itself, the district court (Kelly, J.) ruled on March 25, 2022 

that the Commission had unlawfully failed to act and gave the agency 30 days 

to do so. The Commission did not respond by that deadline. On May 3, the 

court therefore issued a final judgment declaring that Campaign Legal Center 

could bring a direct lawsuit against Heritage Action under the Federal 

Election Campaign Act of 1971 (the Act). The Center then sued Heritage 

Action on May 5 in a case now pending before Judge Nichols. 

The next day, however, the Commission—prompted by a Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) request—revealed that it had in fact acted on 

Campaign Legal Center’s administrative complaint shortly after the Center 

had sued the agency. On April 6, 2021, the bipartisan, six-member 

Commission had voted on the matter, but the Center’s administrative 

complaint failed to garner the four votes necessary to initiate an enforcement 

action. Instead, three Commissioners voted not to pursue enforcement as an 

exercise of their prosecutorial discretion. 

1 
USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 6 of 25 

At that point, the Commission was required to notify the parties that the 

administrative proceedings were over and to release the voting records along 

with any statements of reasons by the Commissioners. Had it done so, Judge 

Kelly would have been compelled to dismiss the Center’s lawsuit against the 

FEC on the ground that the agency’s decision not to pursue enforcement was 

unreviewable in court. Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. FEC, 993 F.3d 

880, 882 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (CREW ). And with that suit gone, the Center would 

have been unable to sue Heritage Action directly under the Act. 

But things took a wrong turn. The three Commissioners who voted in 

favor of initiating an enforcement action—but who failed to secure the 

necessary fourth vote—blocked the Commission from notifying the parties of 

the agency’s action and from defending against the Center’s lawsuit. Through 

this policy of concealment, these Commissioners subjected Heritage Action to 

a lawsuit authorized on the false premise that the agency had never acted on 

the Center’s administrative complaint. 

Upon learning of this concealment, Heritage Action sought postjudgment intervention in order to move for reconsideration or pursue an 

appeal. While frustrated by the “procedural mess,” Judge Kelly 

“[r]egrettably” denied the intervention motion on timeliness grounds, while 

2 
USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 7 of 25 

emphasizing that the court did not “condone the Commission’s unseemly 

failure to appear and defend itself ... or what Heritage Action casts as a 

scheme to hide its activity and leave regulated parties in legal limbo.” Dkt. 34 

at 2, 7.1

 Judge Kelly recognized, however, that Heritage Action could defend 

against the Center’s direct lawsuit by making “the same” point—namely, that 

the FEC had acted on the administrative complaint back in April 2021, thereby 

precluding the Center’s direct lawsuit under the Act. Id. at 6. 

After Judge Kelly denied the intervention motion, the FEC formally 

closed the file on Campaign Legal Center’s administrative complaint and 

released the statement of reasons of the three Commissioners who voted not 

to pursue enforcement as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Even though 

it is now clear that the Center’s suit against Heritage Action was improperly 

authorized and can no longer proceed, the Center has refused to dismiss it. 

While Heritage Action intends to litigate these issues in that case, it has also, 

in an abundance of caution, appealed the denial of its intervention motion along 

with Judge Kelly’s final judgment declaring that the Center could directly sue 

Heritage Action. 

1

 “Dkt.” refers to district-court docket entries in the case below, and “1:22-cv1248 Dkt.” refers to entries in the Center’s suit against Heritage Action. 

3 
 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 8 of 25 

These consolidated protective appeals should therefore be placed into 

abeyance pending the disposition of the motion to dismiss the Center’s lawsuit 

against Heritage Action. This course of action will conserve resources and 

potentially obviate any need to resolve these appeals, without any material 

prejudice to the Center.2 

BACKGROUND 

1.a. Congress enacted the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 

regulate the financing of federal election campaigns. Pub. L. No. 92-225, 86 

Stat. 3 (1972). In doing so, Congress gave the FEC—a newly created 

independent agency run by six presidentially-appointed Commissioners— 

“exclusive jurisdiction” over the Act’s civil enforcement. 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30106(b)(1). 

To prevent any one political party from wielding the Commission’s 

enforcement powers for partisan gain, Congress carefully structured the FEC 

to consist of no more than three members affiliated with the same political 

2

 Heritage Action has conferred with Campaign Legal Center about this 

motion, and the Center opposes the relief requested. The FEC has not 

appeared in this matter and there is no counsel of record to notify. 

Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, counsel for Heritage Action 

contacted the FEC’s Office of General Counsel by email, informing the 

Commission of Heritage Action’s intention to file this motion and asking for 

the Commission’s position. The Commission did not respond. 

4 
 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 9 of 25 

party. Id. § 30106(a). In addition, Congress directed that “[a]ll decisions” of 

the Commission concerning “the exercise of its duties and powers” must be 

made “by a majority vote” of the Commissioners. Id. § 30106(c). 

Congress further provided that a private party may lodge an 

administrative complaint with the Commission alleging a violation of the Act. 

Id. § 30109(a)(1). After reviewing the complaint, along with any response, the 

FEC must vote on whether there is “reason to believe” that the respondent 

has committed a statutory violation. Id. § 30109(a)(2). Unless there is “an 

affirmative vote of 4” Commissioners that such a “reason to believe” exists, 

the FEC cannot proceed further with investigation or enforcement. Id.; see 

id. §§ 30106(c), 30107(a)(9). 

Instead, when “there are fewer than four votes” to proceed, the FEC 

“dismisses the administrative complaint.” Crossroads Grassroots Pol’y 

Strategies v. FEC, 788 F.3d 312, 315 (D.C. Cir. 2015). That remains true in the 

context of so-called “deadlock dismissals”—situations where the Commission 

splits in its vote (typically on a 3-3 basis) on whether to find reason to believe 

a violation has occurred and lacks the four votes necessary to proceed any 

further. Common Cause v. FEC, 842 F.2d 436, 448 (D.C. Cir. 1988); see, e.g., 

CREW, 993 F.3d at 882-83; Crossroads, 788 F.3d at 315. 

5 
 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 10 of 25 

When the Commission dismisses an administrative complaint—or fails 

to act on it within 120 days after the complaint has been filed—the private 

party that sought the agency’s enforcement may sue the FEC in the D.C. 

district court. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A). If the court declares that the 

Commission’s dismissal or failure to act was “contrary to law,” then the FEC 

has 30 days “to conform with such declaration.” Id. § 30109(a)(8)(C). If—but 

only if—the Commission fails to conform by that deadline, the private party 

may bring its own “civil action to remedy” the alleged statutory violation. Id. 

b. When a deadlock dismissal occurs, the Commission must publicly 

disclose that fact. Congress directed that “[i]f the Commission makes a 

determination that a person has not violated [the] Act ... the Commission shall 

make public such determination.” Id. § 30109(a)(4)(B)(ii). And FEC 

regulations provide that “[i]f the Commission finds no reason to believe, or 

otherwise terminates its proceedings, the General Counsel shall so advise both 

complainant and respondent by letter,” 11 C.F.R. § 111.9(b), and “make public 

such action and the basis therefor” within 30 days of that letter, id. § 111.20(a). 

In addition, “[w]hen the Commission lacks four votes to proceed, the 

commissioners who voted against enforcement must state their reasons why,” 

which are “then treated as if they were expressing the Commission’s rationale 

6 
USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 11 of 25 

for dismissal.” CREW, 993 F.3d at 883 n.3 (cleaned up). Such statements allow 

reviewing courts to determine “whether reason or caprice” drove the agency’s 

decision. Democratic Cong. Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 831 F.2d 1131, 1135 

(D.C. Cir. 1987) (R.B. Ginsburg, J.). If a deadlock dismissal is “based even in 

part on prosecutorial discretion,” however, it is “not reviewable” under the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985). CREW, 

993 F.3d at 882. 

In light of these requirements, the Commission for decades addressed 

deadlock dismissals through a policy of administratively closing the 

enforcement-matter file, notifying the parties, and releasing the voting 

records as well as any statements of reasons. See, e.g., FEC’s Partial Mot. to 

Dismiss at 12, Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. FEC, 243 F. Supp. 3d 

91 (D.D.C. 2017) (No. 16-cv-259), Dkt. 12 (explaining that “[a]s a result of” a 

“three-to-three” “split vote, the Commission closed the file”); FEC’s Motion 

to Dismiss at 11, Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. FEC, 164 F. Supp. 3d 

113 (D.D.C. 2015) (No. 14-cv-1419), Dkt. 5 (“If at least four of the FEC’s six 

Commissioners vote to find such reason to believe, the Commission may 

investigate the alleged violation; otherwise, the Commission dismisses the 

administrative complaint.”); Matter Under Review 5024 (Nov. 4, 2003) 

7 
 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 12 of 25 

(deciding by a 6-0 vote to close the file and send the appropriate notices after 

splitting 3-3 on whether there was reason to believe a violation had occurred). 

This public release then allows the aggrieved administrative complainant to 

challenge the FEC’s deadlock dismissal in court under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8). 

Recently, however, the FEC—at the behest of Commissioners Walther, 

Broussard, and Weintraub—has adopted a new policy. As the New York 

Times reported in 2021 based in part on interviews with Commissioner 

Weintraub, these three Commissioners “are declining to formally close some 

cases after the Republicans vote against enforcement” in order to “leave[] 

investigations officially sealed in secrecy and legal limbo.” Shane Goldmacher, 

Democrats’ Improbable New F.E.C. Strategy: More Deadlock Than Ever, 

N.Y. TIMES (June 8, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/3zdp9sej. The same three 

Commissioners are then “blocking the F.E.C. from defending itself in court 

when advocates sue the commission for failing to do its job.” Id. By making 

federal courts “believe” that “deadlocked cases are unresolved” through this 

new policy, these three Commissioners are trying to “open the door for outside 

advocacy groups to directly sue ... in federal court.” Id. 

On May 13, 2022, the remaining three Commissioners issued a 

statement condemning this new policy. Dkt. 25-2. As they explained, the 

8 
USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 13 of 25 

FEC—acting through Commissioners Walther, Broussard, and Weintraub— 

has “weaponiz[ed] a nominal housekeeping act,” “affirmatively misled 

respondents,” and “intentionally shielded” its actions “from both judicial and 

public review.” Id. at 2, 5. They also revealed that this policy had been applied 

to “eight enforcement matters” before the FEC at that time, even though 

“votes have been taken” and “statements of reasons have been included in the 

file by the commissioners declining to move forward.” Id. at 2-3. 

2.a. These appeals concern one of those eight enforcement matters. 

On October 16, 2018, Campaign Legal Center, along with an individual named 

Margaret Christ, lodged an administrative complaint with the FEC alleging 

that Heritage Action had violated the Act by failing to disclose the identities 

of contributors for certain independent expenditures under 52 U.S.C. § 30104. 

Dkt. 1-1. A few days later, the Commission acknowledged receipt and 

designated the matter as Matter Under Review 7516. Dkt. 1-9. 

On February 16, 2021, the Center sued the Commission in district court, 

alleging that the FEC had failed to act on the Center’s administrative 

complaint and that this inaction was contrary to law under 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30109(a)(8)(A). Dkt. 1. When the Commission failed to enter an appearance 

or otherwise defend against the lawsuit, the clerk of court entered default 

9 
USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 14 of 25 

against the FEC on May 10, 2021. Dkt. 9. The Center moved for a default 

judgment two weeks later, on May 24, 2021. Dkt. 10. 

On March 25, 2022, the court issued an order granting the Center’s 

motion. Dkt. 16. The court found that “the FEC has taken no action on” the 

Center’s administrative complaint and that this “failure to act ... is contrary 

to law.” Id. at 1-2. It therefore directed the Commission to “conform to” the 

order “within 30 days” under § 30109(a)(8)(C) “by acting on” the Center’s 

“administrative complaint.” Id. at 2. Fearing that the Center’s administrative 

complaint was subject to the Commission’s new concealment policy, Heritage 

Action submitted a FOIA request to the FEC the same day requesting vote 

certifications and any statements of reasons on the matter. Dkt. 17-5. 

b. On April 26, Campaign Legal Center sought a declaration that the 

Commission had failed to conform to the default-judgment order. Dkt. 21. The 

court granted the request on May 3, ruling that the Commission had “failed to 

conform” to the default-judgment order by not “acting on Campaign Legal 

Center’s administrative complaint” by April 25 and that the Center may 

therefore “bring ‘a civil action’” against Heritage Action under 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30109(a)(8)(C). Dkt. 23 at 1-2. Two days later, the Center filed a direct 

lawsuit against Heritage Action. No. 1:22-cv-1248 (D.D.C.) (Nichols, J.). 

10 
 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 15 of 25 

The very next day, May 6, the Commission responded to Heritage 

Action’s FOIA request by stating that it would produce responsive records, 

thereby confirming that the FEC had in fact acted on the Center’s 

administrative complaint. Dkt. 24-2. The Commission subsequently released 

vote certifications recording that it had taken “action[]” on the Center’s 

administrative complaint on April 6, 2021—over a year before Judge Kelly’s 

April 25, 2022 deadline. Dkt. 32-1 at 4. On that day, the Commission voted on 

whether there was reason to believe that Heritage Action had violated the Act 

in a manner warranting enforcement. Id. 

The enforcement vote failed by a 3-3 breakdown. Id. The three 

Commissioners who voted against enforcement—Commissioners Cooksey, 

Dickerson, and Trainer—supported dismissal as a matter of agency 

enforcement discretion “under Heckler v. Chaney.” Id. Their “‘controlling’” 

statement of reasons from that day confirms that they “voted to dismiss, as an 

exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the allegation in this matter that Heritage 

Action ... improperly reported certain independent expenditures by not 

including donor information.” 1:22-cv-1248 Dkt. 18-1 at 3 & n.1. As that 

statement explained, “[a]t the heart of this matter is First Amendment 

protected activity that took place at a time when the meaning of the provision 

11 
USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 16 of 25 

of the law at issue was in flux, in a matter which came before the Commission 

as part of a tremendous enforcement backlog.” Id. at 5. 

The same three Commissioners likewise voted on April 6, 2021 to close 

the administrative file—so that the Center and Heritage Action could be 

notified of the FEC’s action on the administrative complaint. Dkt. 32-1 at 5. 

Commissioners Broussard, Walther, and Weintraub, however, refused to do 

so, thereby concealing the Commission’s action from the parties and the 

courts. Id. Instead, the FEC waited to formally close the administrative file 

until June 7, 2022, after Judge Kelly had authorized the Center’s direct 

lawsuit. 1:22-cv-1248 Dkt. 17-2. 

c. In response to the Commission’s revelations, Heritage Action 

moved to intervene before Judge Kelly on an expedited basis on May 10 in 

order to seek reconsideration of the court’s May 3 final judgment or appeal it. 

Dkt. 24. After Judge Kelly did not order expedited briefing, Heritage Action 

filed a protective notice of appeal on May 20 of the final judgment authorizing 

the Center’s suit. Dkt. 26. 

On June 6, Judge Kelly “[r]egrettably” denied the motion to intervene 

on the premise that it was “not timely.” Dkt. 34 at 2. In doing so, however, 

the court observed that “Heritage Action can advance the same” arguments in 

12 
USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 17 of 25 

the Center’s direct suit before Judge Nichols, who “will have to consider them, 

because whether the Commission’s failure to act was contrary to law and 

whether it conformed with this Court’s order to act implicate” Judge Nichols’ 

ability to entertain that suit. Id. at 6. Judge Kelly also emphasized that the 

denial of the intervention motion does not “condone the Commission’s 

unseemly failure to appear and defend itself in this Court, or what Heritage 

Action casts as a scheme to hide its activity and leave regulated parties in legal 

limbo.” Id. at 7. Heritage Action filed a second protective notice of appeal of 

the denial of its intervention motion on June 8, Dkt. 35, and this Court 

consolidated the appeals. 

When Heritage Action asked Campaign Legal Center whether it would 

voluntarily dismiss its complaint against Heritage Action in No. 1:22-cv-1422 

before Judge Nichols, the Center refused. Heritage Action will therefore 

move to dismiss the Center’s direct lawsuit on July 8, 2022 in light of the 

revelations that the Commission had previously acted on the administrative 

complaint and that the controlling Commissioners had voted to dismiss the 

complaint in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Dismissal of the Center’s 

direct suit against Heritage Action in No. 1:22-cv-1248 would make it 

unnecessary for this Court to adjudicate these consolidated appeals. 

13 
USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 18 of 25 

ARGUMENT 

This Court should place these protective appeals into abeyance pending 

the disposition of the motion to dismiss Campaign Legal Center’s direct 

lawsuit against Heritage Action in No. 1:22-cv-1248 before Judge Nichols. 

This Court “[o]ften” issues abeyance “orders in light of other pending 

proceedings that may affect the outcome of the case before” it. Basardh v. 

Gates, 545 F.3d 1068, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (collecting cases addressing 

petitions for review). When two cases raise “common issues,” the “prospect” 

that “[r]esolution of the” other proceeding “may entirely, or partially, moot” 

the case before this Court “militates in favor of holding” it in “abeyance,” given 

the “‘longstanding policy of the law to avoid duplicative litigative activity.’” Id.; 

see Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. SEC, 800 F.3d 518, 557-58 (D.C. Cir. 2015) 

(Srinivasan, J., concurring in part) (collecting cases holding an appeal in 

abeyance pending a ruling from the en banc Circuit or the Supreme Court). 

This Court should follow that practice here. As Judge Kelly recognized, 

the questions “whether the Commission’s failure to act was contrary to law 

and whether it conformed with this Court’s order to act” at issue in these 

appeals can and must be decided in the Center’s direct suit against Heritage 

Action currently pending before Judge Nichols. Dkt. 34 at 6. If Judge Nichols 

14 
USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 19 of 25 

dismisses that lawsuit on the ground that it should never have been authorized 

under 52 U.S.C § 30109(a)(8)(C), and that ruling is not appealed, this Court 

will have never have to resolve these appeals. Accordingly, if this Court does 

“not decide the merits of appellants’ challenge ... now,” it “may never need to.” 

Wheaton Coll. v. Sebelius, 703 F.3d 551, 552 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). 

While dismissing these appeals to litigate these issues before Judge 

Nichols would now arguably be even more efficient, the Center’s conduct has 

made it necessary to keep these appeals alive. The Center has signaled it will 

contend that Heritage Action cannot “relitigate” the merits questions raised 

before Judge Kelly in defending itself against the direct lawsuit. 1:22-cv-1248 

Dkt. 14 at 5; see id. at 23. Heritage Action therefore had no choice but to 

preserve these appeals in order to protect its right to press the argument that 

the Center’s lawsuit was improperly authorized. But while these protective 

appeals remain a necessary backstop, there is no need to litigate them now. 

Moreover, holding these appeals in abeyance will not materially 

prejudice the Center. To the contrary, granting abeyance here would save 

both parties from the burden of having to litigate the same issues in two 

different jurisdictions simultaneously. 

15 
 

 

 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 20 of 25 

CONCLUSION 

This Court should place these appeals into abeyance pending the 

disposition of the motion to dismiss in Campaign Legal Center v. Heritage 

Action for America, No. 1:22-cv-1248 (D.D.C.) (Nichols, J.). 

Dated: June 23, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Brett A. Shumate 

Brett A. Shumate 

E. Stewart Crosland 

Brinton Lucas 

Stephen J. Kenny 

JONES DAY 

51 Louisiana Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

(202) 879-3939 

bshumate@jonesday.com 

Counsel for Appellant 

16 
USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 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. Circuit Rule 32(e)(1), this document contains 3264 

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 Century Expd BT typeface. 

/s/ Brett A. Shumate 

17 
 

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 22 of 25 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that, on this 23rd day of June 2022, I filed the 

foregoing motion using this Court’s Appellate CM/ECF system, which 

effected service on all parties. 

/s/ Brett A. Shumate 

18 
USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 23 of 25 

ADDENDUM 
USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 24 of 25 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

HERITAGE ACTION FOR AMERICA, 

Movant-Appellant. 

Nos. 22-5140, 22-5167 

CERTIFICATE OF PARTIES AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

A. Parties and Amici 

The appellant in this Court and the movant in the district court is 

Heritage Action for America (Heritage Action). 

The appellee in this Court and plaintiff in the district court is the 

Campaign Legal Center. The appellee in this Court and defendant in the 

district court is the Federal Election Commission. 

The Institute for Free Speech appeared as amicus curiae in the district 

court. 

B. Disclosure Statement 

Heritage Action for America is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, has no 

parent corporation, and no publicly held corporation owns ten percent or more 

of its stock. 
USCA Case #22-5140 

Dated: June 23, 2022 

Document #1951775 Filed: 06/23/2022 Page 25 of 25 

Respectfully submitted 

/s/ Brett A. Shumate 

Brett A. Shumate 

E. Stewart Crosland 

Brinton Lucas 

Stephen J. Kenny 

JONES DAY 

51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Telephone: (202) 879-3939 

bshumate@jonesday.com 

Counsel for Appellant