UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

 

 ) 

SPEECHNOW.ORG, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) Civ. No. 08-248 (JR) 

 v. ) 

 ) RESPONSE

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

____________________________________) 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S MEMORANDUM 

OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN PARTIAL OPPOSITION TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 

 Plaintiffs have moved this Court for both declaratory and injunctive relief. Although 

plaintiffs merit declaratory relief, they have not made the showing required to warrant the 

stronger medicine of injunctive relief. Because the Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or 

“Commission”) is precluded from relitigating the constitutional issues decided by the Court of 

Appeals against plaintiffs in this or any other forum, they have not demonstrated a cognizable 

danger of future injury sufficient to obtain prohibitory injunctive relief. Moreover, because the 

Commission is presumed to obey a declaratory judgment, any further relief would be 

unnecessary. Since the Court is to exercise its remedial powers only to the extent necessary to 

protect parties from irreparable harm, this Court should only grant the plaintiffs’ motion insofar 

as it asks for declaratory relief consistent with the judgment of the Court of Appeals. 

1 

Case 1:08-cv-00248-JR Document 77 Filed 05/28/10 Page 1 of 11
BACKGROUND 

Under 2 U.S.C. § 437h, a unique provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act, 

2 U.S.C. §§ 431-455 (“Act”), eligible voters and the national committees of political parties can 

bring suit to challenge the constitutionality of any provision of the Act and have certified 

questions answered in the first instance by a court of appeals sitting en banc. On February 14, 

2008, SpeechNow.org and several individual donors (“plaintiffs”) brought suit under section 

437h and moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the Commission from enforcing the 

individual contribution limits in 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3). On July 1, 2008, 

after a hearing, this Court denied the preliminary injunction motion. 

On July 23, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s denial of a preliminary 

injunction. On November 7, 2008, however, after the Court of Appeals had issued scheduling 

orders in the injunction appeal and the parties had filed preliminary documents, SpeechNow 

moved to hold the appeal in abeyance. More than seven months later, on June 23, 2009, 

SpeechNow revived its preliminary injunction appeal and, on July 15, 2009, successfully moved 

to expedite it. 

Before plaintiffs originally noticed their appeal, this Court, on July 11, 2008, granted 

plaintiffs’ motion under 2 U.S.C. § 437h to certify constitutional questions for the Court of 

Appeals to consider en banc. The parties conducted discovery and submitted proposed findings 

of fact and briefs on evidentiary and other issues. On September 28, 2009, the Court issued its 

findings of fact and, on October 7, 2009, sent these findings and five certified questions of law to 

the Court of Appeals. On October 26, 2009, the appellate court consolidated SpeechNow’s 

appeal of the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction with the section 437h merits 

proceeding. 

2 

Case 1:08-cv-00248-JR Document 77 Filed 05/28/10 Page 2 of 11
The en banc Court of Appeals heard argument on the matter on January 27, 2010, and 

issued its opinion on March 26, 2010. SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010). 

Finding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), 

resolved the certified questions on appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the contribution limits 

in 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3) are unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs. The 

Court of Appeals also held that the reporting requirements of 2 U.S.C. §§ 432, 433, and 434(a) 

and the organizational requirements of 2 U.S.C. §§ 431(4) and 431(8) can be applied to the 

plaintiffs.1

 The Court of Appeals vacated this Court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for 

preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings in accordance with its 

opinion.2

On April 16, 2010, plaintiffs moved in the Court of Appeals for immediate issuance of its 

mandate. The appellate court granted the motion on May 3, 2010, and issued its mandate to the 

Clerk of this Court that same day. 

ARGUMENT 

The Court should grant plaintiffs only declaratory relief. An injunction is an 

“extraordinary remedy” that “directs the conduct of a party, and does so with the backing of its 

full coercive powers.” Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1757 (2009) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). “The purpose of an injunction is to prevent future violations . . .” United 

States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953) (citation omitted). Accordingly, “[u]nder 

 

1

 The judgment of the Court of Appeals specified that “the contribution limits set forth 

in certified questions 1, 2, and 3 cannot be constitutionally applied against SpeechNow and the 

individual plaintiffs; and there is no constitutional infirmity in the application of the 

organizational, administrative, and reporting requirements set forth in certified questions 

4 and 5.” 

2

 SpeechNow.org has remained pending before this Court as a non-section 437h plaintiff, 

and this Court should separately grant summary judgment to it before entering judgment for all 

plaintiffs in the required “separate document.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). 

3 

Case 1:08-cv-00248-JR Document 77 Filed 05/28/10 Page 3 of 11
general equity principles, an injunction issues only if there is a showing that the defendant has 

violated, or imminently will violate, some provision of statutory or common law, and that there 

is a ‘cognizable danger of recurrent violation.’” Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 

753, 765 n.3 (1994) (quoting W.T. Grant, 345 U.S. at 633) (emphasis added); accord Taylor v. 

Resolution Trust Corp., 56 F.3d 1497, 1508 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (“[W]ithout adequate proof of a 

threatened injury, plaintiff lacks both standing and an adequate basis in equity for an 

injunction.”).3

 

I. PLAINTIFFS CANNOT SHOW THAT THEY WILL SUFFER A COGNIZABLE 

DANGER OF RECURRENT VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW ABSENT AN 

INJUNCTION 

Arguing that declaratory relief by itself will not adequately protect their rights, plaintiffs 

ask (Br. 4) this Court for injunctive relief. The Commission, they allege (id.), might enforce the 

contribution limits against them in another forum. But the Commission is foreclosed from doing 

so by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Because plaintiffs have obtained a valid judgment on 

the merits of their claims, the Commission is plainly precluded from relitigating those issues 

against plaintiffs anywhere they may choose to engage in the activities that the Court of Appeals 

found to be protected by the First Amendment. 

 

3

 As district courts in this circuit have noted, “In determining whether to enter a permanent 

injunction, the Court considers a modified iteration of the factors it utilizes in assessing 

preliminary injunctions: (1) success on the merits, (2) whether the plaintiffs will suffer 

irreparable injury absent an injunction, (3) whether, balancing the hardships, there is harm to 

defendants or other interested parties, and (4) whether the public interest favors granting the 

injunction.” Breaking the Chain Found., Inc. v. Capitol Educ. Support, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 2d 25, 

30 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting ACLU v. Mineta, 319 F. Supp. 2d 69, 87 (D.D.C. 2004); Lifted 

Research Group, Inc. v. Behdad, Inc., 591 F. Supp. 2d 3, 7 (D.D.C. 2008) (same). In this case, 

plaintiffs have already succeeded on the merits. But as we explain below, plaintiffs will not 

suffer irreparable injury and the public interest is not served by unnecessarily enjoining the 

government. 

4 

Case 1:08-cv-00248-JR Document 77 Filed 05/28/10 Page 4 of 11
Also known as issue preclusion, collateral estoppel provides that a party that litigates a 

factual or legal question and receives a final decision on that question may not litigate it again in 

a subsequent action. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 33 (1982) (“A valid and final 

judgment in an action brought to declare rights or other legal relations of the parties is conclusive 

in a subsequent action between them as to the matters declared, and, in accordance with the rules 

of issue preclusion, as to any issues actually litigated by them and determined in the action.”); 

Forsyth v. City of Hammond, 166 U.S. 506, 518 (1897) (“Though the form and causes of action 

be different, a decision by a court of competent jurisdiction in respect to any essential fact or 

question in the one action is conclusive between the parties in all subsequent actions.”). 

Collateral estoppel and the related doctrine of claim preclusion (collectively known as res 

judicata) are meant to “conserve judicial resources, avoid inconsistent results, engender respect 

for judgments of predictable and certain effect, and . . . prevent serial forum-shopping and 

piecemeal litigation.” McGee v. District of Columbia, 646 F. Supp. 2d 115, 123 (D.D.C. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). For collateral estoppel to apply, “[1], the same 

issue now being raised must have been contested by the parties and submitted for judicial 

determination in the prior case[; 2], the issue must have been actually and necessarily determined 

by a court of competent jurisdiction in that prior case[; and] [3], preclusion in the second case 

must not work a basic unfairness to the party bound by the first determination.” Martin v. Dep’t 

of Justice, 488 F.3d 446, 454 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. United States, 

961 F.2d 245, 254 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (alterations in original). 

Since the parties here raised and contested the constitutionality of the Act’s contribution 

limits as applied to plaintiffs, and the Court of Appeals actually and necessarily passed judgment 

on this issue, the Commission is precluded from seeking another forum in which to challenge 

5 

Case 1:08-cv-00248-JR Document 77 Filed 05/28/10 Page 5 of 11
plaintiffs’ claims with regard to that judgment. See Nat’l Post Office Mail Handlers v. Am. 

Postal Workers Union, 907 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (holding that issue preclusion prevented 

appellants from relitigating issue in D.C. Circuit decided by the Ninth Circuit in case involving 

the same parties); Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. United States, 961 F.2d 245, 258 (D.C. Cir. 1992) 

(“[T]he fact that the substantive law may be different in the two jurisdictions does not affect the 

application of issue preclusion. ‘The doctrine of issue preclusion counsels us against reaching 

the merits of this case . . . regardless of whether we would reject or accept our sister circuit’s 

position.’”) (quoting Nat’l Post Office, 907 F.2d at 194).4

The cases plaintiffs rely upon do not suggest otherwise. As plaintiffs note (Br. 4), the 

Commission previously litigated the constitutionality of the Commission’s regulation defining 

“expressly advocating,” 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b), outside the circuit in which it had already been 

declared unconstitutional.5

 But in none of these cases did the Commission seek to enforce 

regulations in other circuits against the same parties that had obtained declaratory relief. Indeed, 

in the cases cited by the plaintiffs, the Commission was not even seeking to enforce 11 C.F.R. 

§ 100.22(b). Rather, in these cases, the Commission defended the constitutionality of the 

regulation in three separate suits brought by three different nonprofit corporations: the Maine 

Right to Life Committee, the Right to Life Committee of Dutchess County, and the Virginia 

Society for Human Life. And in these cases, under the doctrine of intercircuit nonacquiescence, 

 

4

 The possibility that the Court of Appeals decision in this case may yet be reviewed by the 

Supreme Court does not diminish the preclusive effect of the Court’s judgment. See Hunt v. 

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 707 F.2d 1493, 1497 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (“Under well-settled federal law, the 

pendency of an appeal does not diminish the res judicata effect of a judgment rendered by a 

federal court.”). 

5

 See Me. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. FEC, 98 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996); Right to Life of 

Dutchess County, Inc. v. FEC, 6 F. Supp. 2d 248 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); Va. Soc’ty for Human Life, 

Inc. v. FEC, 263 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2001). 

6 

Case 1:08-cv-00248-JR Document 77 Filed 05/28/10 Page 6 of 11
collateral estoppel did not bar the Commission from litigating the regulation’s constitutionality in 

other circuits against non-parties to the prior judgments. 

“Intercircuit nonacquiescence” permits an agency to refuse to treat as precedent an 

adverse ruling when the same issue arises in another case in another circuit. See generally

Samuel Estreicher & Richard L. Revesz, Nonacquiescence by Federal Administrative Agencies, 

98 Yale L.J. 679 (1989). This practice was implicitly approved by the Supreme Court in United 

States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154 (1984). In Mendoza, the Court held that the doctrine of 

nonmutual collateral estoppel did not apply to the federal government.6

 The Court observed that 

estopping the government from challenging an adverse circuit court decision in other circuits 

would largely foreclose the development of circuit splits, which the Supreme Court relies on in 

selecting its docket. 

A rule allowing nonmutual collateral estoppel against the government in such 

cases would substantially thwart the development of important questions of 

law by freezing the first final decision rendered on a particular legal issue. 

Allowing only one final adjudication would deprive this Court of the benefit it 

receives from permitting several courts of appeals to explore a difficult 

question before this Court grants certiorari. Indeed, if nonmutual [collateral] 

estoppel were routinely applied against the government, this Court would 

have to revise its practice of waiting for a conflict to develop before granting 

the government’s petitions for certiorari. 

Id. at 160 (citations omitted). Accordingly, the circuit courts generally have recognized that the 

government can pursue similar claims in different circuits against non-parties to prior 

judgments.7

 

 

6

 “Mutual” collateral estoppel refers to circumstances in which both parties in a second 

case were parties in the first case; “nonmutual” collateral estoppel refers to when a party in a 

second case who was not a party in the first case seeks to estop an opponent who was a party to 

the first case. Gibson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 380 F.3d 886, 890 (5th Cir. 2004). 

7

 See generally Givens v. U.S. R.R. Retirement Bd., 720 F.2d 196, 200 (D.C. Cir. 1983) 

(“Federal appellate courts can, and do, differ in their conclusions as to the law affecting agency 

action. That is what makes horseraces and Supreme Court cases.”) (internal quotation marks 

7 

Case 1:08-cv-00248-JR Document 77 Filed 05/28/10 Page 7 of 11
The cases cited by plaintiffs where the Commission defended 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b) are 

thus inapposite. The Commission’s past nonacquiescence against non-parties to a previous 

judgment in no way suggests that the Commission can enforce in another forum parts of the Act 

found unconstitutional against these very plaintiffs. Even if the Commission chose to defend or 

enforce the contribution limits in other circuits in cases brought by or against parties similar to 

plaintiffs, it would not do so in litigation against these plaintiffs. Because the Commission is 

precluded from pursuing plaintiffs in other circuits, the movants have adduced nothing which 

plausibly suggests that they face a cognizable threat of injury in the absence of an injunction. 

“[W]ithout adequate proof of a threatened injury,” plaintiffs have failed to establish “an adequate 

basis in equity for an injunction.” Taylor, 56 F.3d at 1508; see also Madsen, 512 U.S. at 765 

n.3.8

II. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS PARTICULARLY UNNECESSARY AGAINST A 

GOVERNMENT PARTY THAT IS PRESUMED TO OBEY DECLARATORY 

JUDGMENTS 

Recognizing the “fundamental limitations on the remedial powers of the federal courts,” 

the Supreme Court has explained that federal courts’ equitable powers may “be exercised only 

on the basis of a violation of the law and [may] extend no farther than required by the nature and 

the extent of that violation.” Gen. Bldg. Contractors Ass’n, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 

399 (1982) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Courts thus eschew granting 

equitable remedies broader than necessary to vindicate the rights of parties threatened with 

irreparable harm. See Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329 (1944) (“The essence of equity 

 

omitted); Holland v. Nat’l Mining Ass’n, 309 F.3d 808, 815 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“Allowing one 

circuit’s statutory interpretation to foreclose APA review of the question in another circuit would 

squelch the circuit disagreements that can lead to Supreme Court review.”). 

8

 Although plaintiffs suggest otherwise (Br. 3), the Court of Appeals’ vacature of this 

Court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief is not dispositive as to whether they now merit a 

permanent injunction. 

8 

Case 1:08-cv-00248-JR Document 77 Filed 05/28/10 Page 8 of 11
jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to do equity and to mould each decree to the 

necessities of the particular case.”). Here, declaratory relief is all that is necessary to protect 

plaintiffs from further litigating the issues resolved by the Court of Appeals. 

Absent allegations and proof to the contrary, the government is presumed to comply with 

the law as declared by the courts. Thus, because declaratory relief will adequately protect the 

rights of prevailing parties, injunctions are unnecessary against the government. As the Supreme 

Court explained in the context of “a state statute or local ordinance,” “[a]t the conclusion of a 

successful federal challenge . . . , a district court can generally protect the interests of a federal 

plaintiff by entering a declaratory judgment, and therefore the stronger injunctive medicine will 

be unnecessary.” Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 931 (1975). 

Similarly, in Poe v. Gerstein, 417 U.S. 281 (1974), a three-judge district court declared a 

Florida statute unconstitutional but declined to enjoin its enforcement “anticipat[ing] that the 

State would respect the declaratory judgment.” The Supreme Court in Poe held that the “the 

District Court properly refused to issue the injunction; for there was ‘no allegation here and no 

proof that respondents would not, nor [could the Court] assume that [the state] will not, 

acquiesce in the decision . . . holding the challenged ordinance unconstitutional.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Similarly, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court declined to address 

whether the district court properly withheld injunctive relief, assuming instead that government 

authorities would “give full credence to this decision that the present criminal abortion statutes of 

that State are unconstitutional.” 410 U.S. 113, 166 (1973). 

The presumption that the government will obey a declaratory judgment means that courts 

consider declaratory relief as effective a remedy as injunctive relief in circumstances like those 

here. See, e.g., Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“We note 

9 

Case 1:08-cv-00248-JR Document 77 Filed 05/28/10 Page 9 of 11
in this regard that the discretionary relief of declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this 

where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as injunction 

or mandamus, since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared 

by the court.”); Kantrowitz v. Weinberger, 388 F. Supp. 1127, 1131 (D.D.C. 1974) (“Since there 

has been no allegation that [federal government] defendants would refuse to obey a declaratory 

judgment of this Court, injunctive relief would, in any event, be inappropriate.”).9

 No injunction 

should therefore issue. 

Plaintiffs have also asked (Br. 6) for declaratory relief with respect to the regulations that 

implement the provisions of the Act held unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs. This request 

asks for relief that would be unnecessary and should be denied. Because the Commission cannot 

enforce the statutory provisions at issue, it plainly cannot enforce the relevant implementing 

regulations either.10

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Commission respectfully asks this Court to deny 

plaintiffs’ motion to the extent it asks for injunctive relief or for relief specifically involving the 

Commission’s regulations. 

 

9

 Plaintiffs’ reliance on Minnesota Chamber of Commerce v. Gaertner, Civ. No. 10-426, 

2010 WL 1838362 (D. Minn. May 7, 2010), to argue (Br. 4-5) that they need the additional 

protection of an injunction is misplaced. Central to the district court’s reasoning there was 

“the very real danger that an elected county attorney from outside [the county of the defendant 

attorney] might consider himself or herself not bound by the Court’s decision.” Id. at *4 

(emphasis added). Such danger does not exist here, where the Commission is vested with 

exclusive civil enforcement jurisdiction over the Act, 2 U.S.C. § 437c(b)(1), and will 

presumptively obey any declaratory judgment issued by this Court. 

10 This request, moreover, involves Commission regulations that were not technically 

before the D.C. Circuit. Section 437h, the provision of the Act pursuant to which all but one of 

the plaintiffs obtained a ruling from that Court, empowers courts to entertain actions only to 

“construe the constitutionality of any provision of this Act.” The certified questions, the Court 

of Appeals opinion, and its mandate do not refer to any Commission regulations. 

10 

Case 1:08-cv-00248-JR Document 77 Filed 05/28/10 Page 10 of 11
11 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Thomasenia P. Duncan 

General Counsel 

tduncan@fec.gov 

 

David Kolker 

Associate General Counsel 

dkolker@fec.gov 

 

Kevin Deeley 

Assistant General Counsel 

kdeeley@fec.gov 

/s/ Steve N. Hajjar

Steve N. Hajjar 

Attorney 

shajjar@fec.gov 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street, N.W. 

 Washington, D.C. 20463 

May 28, 2010 (202) 694-1650 

Case 1:08-cv-00248-JR Document 77 Filed 05/28/10 Page 11 of 11