UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

 

 ) 

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ) 

ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants, ) Nos. 16-5300, 16-5343 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant-Appellee, ) 

 ) 

AMERICAN ACTION NETWORK, INC., ) MOTION TO DISMISS

 ) 

 Intervenor Defendant-Appellant. ) 

 ) 

APPELLEE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 

Appellee Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or “Commission”) 

respectfully moves to dismiss the appeal and cross-appeal respectively filed by 

Intervenor Defendant-Appellant American Action Network, Inc. (“American 

Action Network”) and Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants Citizens for Responsibility and 

Ethics in Washington and Melanie Sloan (collectively, “CREW”), because this 

Court lacks jurisdiction over both appeals. 

The Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA” or the “Act”) sets forth a 

detailed statutory scheme for administrative enforcement proceedings pursuant to 

which private parties may file administrative complaints alleging violations of 

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 1 of 20
2

FECA and Commission regulations. The Act also permits an administrative 

complainant to seek judicial review of a Commission decision dismissing that 

party’s administrative complaint and a determination that the dismissal was 

“contrary to law.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8). These appeals challenge a district 

court decision finding certain FEC dismissals contrary to law and remanding those 

matters back to the Commission for further proceedings. This Court, however, 

lacks jurisdiction over these appeals. 

As detailed below, both appeals are premature because they seek judicial 

review of the district court’s non-final remand order. The non-finality of such 

orders is well established. E.g., N.C. Fisheries Ass’n v. Gutierrez, 550 F.3d 16, 19 

(D.C. Cir. 2008); Pueblo of Sandia v. Babbitt, 231 F.3d 878, 880 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 

And non-finality is especially clear here in light of the pendency of further district 

court proceedings — initiated by CREW — related to the Commission’s actions 

taken in compliance with that remand order. Indeed, in apparent recognition that 

their appeals are premature, American Action Network and CREW have jointly 

asked this Court to hold these appeals in abeyance pending completion of the stillongoing district court proceedings. Appellants’ own actions in this Court thus 

demonstrate why their appeals are premature and improper. 

In addition, the Commission’s action on remand — dismissing CREW’s 

administrative complaint against American Action Network based on a revised 

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 2 of 20
3

analysis — left the parties without standing for their appeals of the district court’s 

remand order. If, in the future, American Action Network or CREW is ultimately 

unsatisfied with the final resolution of the underlying action, either party could 

seek this Court’s review of the district court’s remand order in connection with a 

future appeal of the final judgment in this case. The Court lacks jurisdiction over 

their appeals at this time, however, because the decision on appeal granted CREW 

the relief it sought and, as a result of the Commission’s post-remand dismissal, 

American Action Network is not currently facing any adverse action that could 

form the basis of a legally cognizable injury. 

For these reasons and those detailed below, this Court should grant the 

Commission’s motion and dismiss American Action Network’s appeal and 

CREW’s cross-appeal. 

BACKGROUND 

I. THE FEC AND THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT 

The FEC is a six-member, independent agency of the United States 

government with “exclusive jurisdiction” to administer, interpret, and civilly 

enforce FECA. 52 U.S.C. § 30106(b)(1); see also generally id. §§ 30106, 30107. 

FECA provides that decisions of the Commission “with respect to the 

exercise of its duties and powers under the provisions of th[e] Act shall be made by 

a majority vote of the members of the Commission,” and that certain specified 

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 3 of 20
4

actions require “the affirmative vote of 4 members of the Commission.” Id. § 

30106(c). As described further below, the decision to open an investigation or take 

other statutory steps to advance FECA’s administrative enforcement process thus 

requires the assent of at least four Commissioners. Id. §§ 30106(c), 30107(a)(6), 

(9). 

FECA permits any person to file an administrative complaint with the FEC 

alleging a violation of the Act. Id. § 30109(a)(1); see also 11 C.F.R. § 111.4. 

After considering the complaint and any response thereto, the FEC determines 

whether there is “reason to believe” that FECA has been violated. 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30109(a)(2). Any investigation under this provision is confidential until the 

administrative process is complete. Id. § 30109(a)(12). 

If at least four of the FEC’s six Commissioners vote to find reason to 

believe, the FEC may investigate the alleged violation; otherwise, it dismisses the 

administrative complaint. Id. §§ 30106(c), 30109(a)(2).1

 

                                                            

1

 If the FEC proceeds with an investigation, it then must determine whether 

there is “probable cause” to believe that FECA has been violated. 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30109(a)(4)(A)(i). A probable cause determination also requires an affirmative 

vote of at least four Commissioners. Id. §§ 30106(c), 30109(a)(4)(A)(i). If the 

Commission so votes, it is statutorily required to attempt to reach a conciliation 

agreement with the respondent. Id. The FEC’s assent to a conciliation agreement 

requires an affirmative vote of at least four Commissioners, and such an 

agreement, unless violated, bars any further action by the FEC related to the 

violation underlying that agreement. Id. If the FEC is unable to reach a conciliation 

agreement, FECA authorizes the FEC to institute a de novo civil enforcement 

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 4 of 20
5

If, at any point in the administrative process, the Commission determines 

that no violation has occurred or decides to dismiss the administrative complaint 

for some other reason, the administrative complainant may file suit against the 

Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to 

obtain a determination whether the Commission’s dismissal was “contrary to law.” 

Id. § 30109(a)(8)(A). If the court so finds, it is limited to remanding the case to the 

Commission and ordering the agency to “conform with” the court’s order within 

30 days. Id. § 30109(a)(8)(C). A court cannot mandate a particular outcome on 

remand because the Commission may reach the same outcome based on a different 

rationale. FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 25 (1998); Crossroads Grassroots Policy 

Strategies v. FEC, 788 F.3d 312, 315 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Should the Commission 

fail to conform with a contrary-to-law declaration, the administrative complainant 

may bring in their own name “a civil action to remedy the violation involved in the 

original complaint.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C). 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

A. CREW’s Administrative and Judicial Complaints 

In administrative complaints filed with the Commission in March and June 

2012, CREW alleged that Americans for Job Security and American Action 

                                                                                                                                                                                               

action in federal district court, upon an affirmative vote of at least four 

Commissioners. Id. §§ 30106(c), 30109(a)(6)(A). 

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 5 of 20
6

Network had violated FECA by failing to register and report as political 

committees. CREW v. FEC, No. 14-cv-1419, ---F. Supp. 3d---, 2016 WL 5107018, 

at *3 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2016).2

 In June 2014, the Commission, by a vote of 3-3, 

did not find reason to believe that either Americans for Job Security or American 

Action Network had violated FECA’s political committee registration and 

reporting requirements, and then voted 6-0 to close the file in both matters. Id. 

The Commissioners issued statements of reasons explaining their votes on both 

matters. Id. Because Chairman Petersen and Commissioners Hunter and 

Goodman voted against finding reason to believe that American Action Network 

and Americans for Job Security violated FECA, they were the “controlling group” 

in both matters and their statements of reasons “necessarily state[d] the agency’s 

reasons for acting as it did.” FEC v. Nat’l Republican Senatorial Comm., 966 F.2d 

1471, 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1992); see also CREW, 2016 WL 5107018 at *1, *5. 

CREW then filed an action under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8) for judicial 

review of the Commission’s dismissals of its administrative complaints. After 

American Action Network intervened as a defendant and the district court 

dismissed improper Administrative Procedure Act claims CREW had attempted to 

                                                            

2

 In accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a)(2)(B)(iii) and 

Circuit Rule 27(g)(2), the Commission has included a copy of the district court’s 

opinion and order on review as Exhibit 1 to this motion. 

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 6 of 20
7

bring,3 the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment. See CREW, 

2016 WL 5107018, at *1. 

In an opinion and order issued September 19, 2016 (collectively, the 

“Remand Order”), the district court granted CREW’s motion for summary 

judgment and denied the cross-motions filed by the Commission and American 

Action Network. Id. at *13. The court found that the FEC’s dismissal decisions 

were contrary to law, and it remanded the matters to the Commission for further 

proceedings consistent with the court’s opinion. Id. at *7-12.  The FEC 

determined, by a vote of 3-3, not to appeal the Remand Order.4

 American Action 

Network did appeal that ruling, and CREW has cross-appealed.5

 

B. FEC Actions on Remand 

On remand, the Commission reconsidered the American Action Network 

matter in light of the district court’s Remand Order and, on October 19, 2016, by a 

                                                            

3 CREW v. FEC, 164 F. Supp. 3d 113 (D.D.C. 2015). CREW has not 

indicated that it is challenging that decision in its cross-appeal. 

4

 Letter to Noah Bookbinder and Melanie Sloan, from Kathleen Guith, FEC 

Acting Associate General Counsel for Enforcement, Re: MUR 6589R (American 

Action Network), Oct. 12, 2016, Ex. 1 to Mot. to Hold Case in Abeyance by 

Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants and Intervenor Defendant-Appellant (“Abeyance 

Mot.”), at ECF p. 50 (filed Nov. 15, 2016) (Doc. #1646225).

5

   Notice of Appeal by Intervenor-Defendant American Action Network, Doc. 

# 1642533, at ECF p. 10; Notice of Cross-Appeal by Plaintiff CREW, Doc. # 

1647155, at ECF p. 11.

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 7 of 20
8

vote of 3-3, the Commission did not find reason to believe that American Action 

Network had violated FECA’s political committee registration and reporting 

requirements. See In the Matter of Am. Action Network, Matter Under Review 

6589R, Certification (Oct. 19, 2016), 

http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/16044401006.pdf.6

 The controlling group of 

Commissioners that voted not to find reason to believe issued a statement of 

reasons explaining their rationale for reaching that decision. In the Matter of Am. 

Action Network, Matter Under Review 6589R, Statement of Reasons of Chairman 

Matthew S. Petersen and Commissioners Caroline C. Hunter and Lee E. Goodman 

(Oct. 19, 2016), http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/16044401031.pdf) (“Remand 

Statement of Reasons”).7

At this time, there is no publicly available information regarding the 

remanded Americans for Job Security matter. 

 

                                                            

6

 See also Letter to Noah Bookbinder and Melanie Sloan, from Kathleen 

Guith, FEC Acting Associate General Counsel for Enforcement, Re: MUR 6589R 

(American Action Network), Oct. 19, 2016, Ex. 1 to Abeyance Mot., at ECF p. 29.

7

 A copy of the Remand Statement of Reasons is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 

in accordance with Circuit Rule 27(g)(2), and was also included as part of the 

exhibit to the Abeyance Motion, at ECF pages 31-49. 

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 8 of 20
9

C. Matters Currently Pending Before the District Court 

After the Commission reconsidered and again dismissed CREW’s 

administrative complaint against American Action Network, CREW filed a motion 

with the district court in the underlying case requesting that the court order the 

FEC to show cause why the Commission should not be held to have violated the 

court’s Remand Order. See Pls.’ Mot. for an Order to Def. FEC to Show Cause, 

attached as Ex. 1 to Abeyance Mot., at ECF pp. 2-27 (“Show-Cause Motion”). 

CREW’s motion argues, inter alia, that the Remand Statement of Reasons is 

contrary to law and inconsistent with the district court’s Remand Order. Id. at ECF 

pp. 5-24. CREW and American Action Network have asked this Court “to hold in 

abeyance all proceedings in [these] appeals” pending the district court’s final 

disposition of CREW’s Show-Cause Motion “and any Order to Show Cause 

proceedings . . . that may result from it.” Abeyance Mot. at 2. 

In addition to seeking further relief in the underlying action, CREW also 

filed a new lawsuit under section 30109(a)(8), alleging that the FEC’s post-remand 

dismissal of the American Action Network matter was contrary to law, and that the 

agency has unlawfully delayed the Americans for Job Security matter on remand. 

Compl., CREW v. FEC, No. 16-cv-2255 (D.D.C. filed Nov. 14, 2016), Doc. No. 1, 

available at http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/crew_162255_fec_complaint.pdf. 

 

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 9 of 20
10

STANDARD OF REVIEW

 The party invoking this Court’s jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing 

that the Court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895, 

899 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 

When determining its own jurisdiction, the Court may consider documents 

outside of the administrative record. Id. at 900; Manguriu v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 119, 

121 (1st Cir. 2015) (collecting cases). And the Court may take judicial notice of 

facts on the public record, including in other proceedings. Covad Commc’ns Co. v. 

Bell Atl. Corp., 407 F.3d 1220, 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Conecuh-Monroe Cmty. 

Action Agency v. Bowen, 852 F.2d 581, 583 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (taking judicial notice 

of administrative ruling issued after district court’s decision); Veg-Mix, Inc. v. U.S. 

Dep’t of Agric., 832 F.2d 601, 607 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“Courts may take judicial 

notice of official court records . . . .”). 

ARGUMENT

I. THE APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL ARE PREMATURE BECAUSE 

THE DISTRICT COURT’S REMAND ORDER IS NOT FINAL 

As private parties, American Action Network and CREW cannot seek this 

Court’s review of the district court’s interlocutory remand order. “It is well settled 

that, as a general rule, a district court order remanding a case to an agency for 

significant further proceedings is not final.” Pueblo of Sandia, 231 F.3d at 880 

(internal quotation marks omitted). This rule, this Court has observed, “promotes 

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 10 of 20
11

judicial economy and efficiency by avoiding the inconvenience and cost of two 

appeals: one from the remand order and one from a later district court decision 

reviewing the proceedings on remand.” Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 716 

F.3d 653, 656 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

The circumstances surrounding these appeals underscore the non-finality of 

the underlying proceedings and the prudence of the rule precluding American 

Action Network’s and CREW’s appeals at this time. CREW, while seeking to 

maintain its cross-appeal, is simultaneously challenging the controlling 

Commissioners’ Remand Statement of Reasons, both in the underlying litigation 

here and in a new section 30109(a)(8) lawsuit. Indeed, in plain recognition of the 

fact that the district court’s resolution of CREW’s pending Show-Cause Motion 

may affect these appeals, CREW and American Action Network have asked this 

Court to hold their appeals in abeyance until the district court’s final disposition of 

that motion, including “any Order to Show Cause proceedings . . . that may result 

from it.” Abeyance Mot. at 2. 

In other words, all parties agree that appellate review is not appropriate at 

this time, but appellants improperly seek to maintain their premature appeals as 

placeholders for any future challenges they may wish to pursue following the 

conclusion of post-remand proceedings in the district court. That approach is 

plainly improper because this Court lacks jurisdiction over these appeals now. See 

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 11 of 20
12

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) (“Without 

jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.”). 

Importantly, American Action Network and CREW are not permanently 

barred from seeking this Court’s review of the district court’s Remand Order. 

While their appeals are premature at this time, if either party is unsatisfied with the 

ultimate resolution of the underlying action, that party would be free to challenge 

the Remand Order in a future appeal of a judgment in this case that is actually 

final. Lakes Pilots Ass’n v. U.S. Coast Guard, 359 F.3d 624, 625 (D.C. Cir. 2004) 

(holding that a party aggrieved by the outcome on remand may “seek judicial 

review, including review in the court of appeals, raising not only new issues but all 

those on which it got no satisfaction in its original challenge”); Occidental 

Petroleum Corp. v. S.E.C., 873 F.2d 325, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (holding that, while 

a party cannot appeal from a non-final remand order, “a party claiming to be 

aggrieved by final agency action can appeal, if still aggrieved, at the conclusion of 

the administrative proceedings on remand”). Of course, whether American Action 

Network or CREW will ultimately wish to pursue such a challenge remains unclear 

at this time — as their Abeyance Motion highlights — because the post-remand 

district court proceedings remain pending. Dismissing their premature appeals 

accounts for the possibility that no appeal will be taken and that the ultimate 

resolution of the proceedings in the court below satisfies all parties. 

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 12 of 20
13

Because the court lacks jurisdiction over American Action Network’s and 

CREW’s premature appeals of an interlocutory remand order, the appeals should 

be dismissed. See Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. FEC, No. 99-5123, 1999 WL 

728351, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 4, 1999) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal of district 

court order remanding to the Commission because the order was not final). 

II. AMERICAN ACTION NETWORK LACKS STANDING TO PURSUE 

ITS APPEAL BECAUSE IT HAS NO INJURY TRACEABLE TO THE 

ORDER BELOW

Because the American Action Network matter was again dismissed on 

remand, American Action Network has, in fact, suffered no legally cognizable 

injury from the district court’s Remand Order. American Action Network thus 

also lacks standing to pursue its appeal. 

Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement mandates that a party invoking 

this Court’s jurisdiction establish standing to pursue any appeal. Hollingsworth v. 

Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013) (“[S]tanding ‘must be met by persons seeking 

appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first 

instance.’” (quoting Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64 

(1997))). And that standing must exist throughout the life of the appeal. Wittman 

v. Personhuballah, 136 S. Ct. 1732, 1736-37 (2016). Where, as here, the party on 

whose side intervention was permitted did not appeal, an intervenor-appellant must 

independently establish standing to prosecute its appeal. Id. at 1736; Diamond v. 

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 13 of 20
14

Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 68 (1986) (“[A]n intervenor’s right to continue a suit in the 

absence of the party on whose side intervention was permitted is contingent upon a 

showing by the intervenor that he fulfills the requirements of Art. III.”). 

To establish standing, a litigant must show: (1) “injury in fact,” i.e. “an 

invasion of a legally protected interest” that is “concrete and particularized” and 

“actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical”; (2) causation, i.e. the injury 

is “fairly traceable” to the challenged conduct; and (3) redressability, i.e. the injury 

will likely be “redressed” by a favorable judicial decision. Lujan v. Defenders of 

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). The Supreme Court recently emphasized 

that the asserted injury must be “real, and not abstract”; “it must actually exist.” 

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

American Action Network possessed a legally cognizable injury when 

challenging the agency’s initial action in the district court, Crossroads Grassroots 

Political Strategies, 788 F.3d at 316-19, but American Action Network at this 

juncture has no such injury traceable to the Remand Order. The organization thus 

cannot establish that this Court possesses jurisdiction over its appeal. On remand, 

the Commission considered the district court’s order, did not find reason to believe 

American Action Network violated FECA, and dismissed CREW’s allegations 

against American Action Network. In light of that dismissal, American Action 

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 14 of 20
15

Network is not currently suffering any actual, concrete injury that is fairly 

traceable to the district court’s Remand Order. Nor can American Action Network 

claim any injury due to potential res judicata effects of the district court’s Remand 

Order. Res judicata only attends final judgments, and, as explained supra Section 

I, the Remand Order is not final. Am. Haw. Cruises v. Skinner, 893 F.2d 1400, 

1403 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (holding that remand orders are not res 

judicata because they are not “final” judgments). Any anticipatory harm that 

American Action Network imagines may result from the district court’s future 

review of the Remand Statement of Reasons is abstract and hypothetical and 

cannot be the basis of this appeal. Without an injury traceable to the ruling it 

purports to appeal, American Action Network cannot establish standing. For this 

reason too, American Action Network’s appeal must be dismissed.8

                                                            

8

 Because the Remand Statement of Reasons supersedes the initial statement of 

reasons that was the subject of the district court opinion on appeal here, some 

decisions from this Court suggest AAN’s appeal should be dismissed as moot. See 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P’ship v. Salazar, 661 F.3d 66, 79 (D.C. Cir. 

2011) (dismissing as moot an appeal regarding a superseded agency decision 

because the Court “can neither invalidate, nor require the [agency] to adhere to, a 

Record of Decision that has disappeared into the regulatory netherworld”) (internal 

quotation marks omitted); Ctr. for Sci. in the Pub. Interest v. Regan, 727 F.2d 

1161, 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (dismissing appeal as moot where the rule that was 

the basis of the proceedings before the district court had been superseded because 

“[a]ny further judicial pronouncement [regarding that superseded rule] would be 

purely advisory”).

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 15 of 20
16

III. ABSENT AMERICAN ACTION NETWORK, CREW LACKS 

STANDING TO PURSUE ITS CROSS-APPEAL OF THE DISTRICT 

COURT RULING IN ITS FAVOR 

Because CREW prevailed in the district court, its cross-appeal is 

“conditional only,” meaning this Court only considers the cross-appeal if and when 

the Court decides to reverse or modify the judgment below. Breeden v. Novartis 

Pharm. Corp., 646 F.3d 43, 49 (D.C. Cir. 2011). As American Action Network’s 

appeal must be dismissed for the multiple independent reasons detailed above, 

supra Sections I-II, CREW’s cross-appeal must, in turn, be dismissed for lack of 

standing. As the prevailing party below, CREW has not suffered an injury from 

the district court’s Remand Order sufficient to establish the standing necessary to 

prosecute its appeal in the absence of American Action Network. 

“A party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor.” In re 

Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 773 F.2d 1325, 1328 (D.C. Cir. 1985) 

(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Mathias v. Worldcom Tech., Inc., 535 

U.S. 682, 684 (2002) (per curiam) (“As a general rule, a party may not appeal from 

a favorable judgment simply to obtain review of findings it deems erroneous.”). 

This is because “prevailing parties lack standing to appeal.” Sea-Land Serv., Inc. 

v. Dep’t of Transp., 137 F.3d 640, 647 (D.C. Cir. 1998); see also Ezzell Trucking, 

Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 309 F.3d 24, 25-26 (D.C. Cir. 2002) 

(dismissing appeal for lack of standing because appellant had prevailed below and 

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 16 of 20
17

thus suffered no injury in fact). Because “[t]his Court . . . reviews judgments, not 

statements in opinions,” Black v. Cutter Laboratories, 351 U.S. 292, 297 (1956), a 

party that obtains the relief it sought below no longer has any injury to redress. 

Hollingsworth, 133 S. Ct. at 2662 (noting that the party prevailing below “no 

longer had any injury to redress” because they had won).

In its complaint, CREW sought an order determining that the controlling 

Commissioners’ initial statements of reasons were contrary to law and directing the 

FEC to conform within 30 days. Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶¶ 1-4, CREW v. FEC, 

No. 14-cv-1419 (D.D.C. August 20, 2014), Doc. No. 1, available at

http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/crew141419_complaint.pdf. This is precisely 

the relief the district court awarded in its Remand Order. CREW, 2016 WL 

5107018, at *12. While the district court may not have reached its decision using 

the precise rationale CREW would have preferred, that outcome “does not make it 

appropriate for this Court to rewrite the [lower court’s] decision, or for the 

prevailing party to request [the Court] to review it.” California v. Rooney, 483 

U.S. 307, 311 (1987) (per curiam). Rather, the focus of the injury inquiry for 

purposes of determining standing on appeal is whether CREW obtained the relief it 

sought — not the rationale upon which it sought such relief. Because CREW 

obtained the relief it was seeking, it has not suffered a cognizable injury from the 

district court’s Remand Order. CREW’s cross-appeal should thus be dismissed for 

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 17 of 20
18

the additional reason that CREW lacks standing to independently appeal the 

decision in its favor. 

CONCLUSION

 For the foregoing reasons, this Court should dismiss American Action 

Network’s appeal and CREW’s cross-appeal. 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

Lisa J. Stevenson 

Acting General Counsel 

Kevin Deeley 

Associate General Counsel 

Erin Chlopak 

Acting Assistant General Counsel 

December 8, 2016 

/s/ Haven G. Ward 

Haven G. Ward 

hward@fec.gov 

Greg J. Mueller 

gmueller@fec.gov 

 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTAPPELLEE FEDERAL ELECTION 

COMMISSION 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

(202) 694-1650 

 

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 18 of 20
19

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMIT, 

TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS, AND TYPE-STYLE REQUIREMENTS

I hereby certify, on this 8th day of December, 2016, that: 

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. 

32(f), this document contains 3,910 words. 

2. This document complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 

32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. 32(a)(6) because 

this document has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using 

Microsoft Word 2013 in a 14-point Times New Roman font. 

 /s/ Haven G. Ward 

 Haven G. Ward 

 

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 19 of 20
20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on this 8th day of December, 2016, I electronically filed 

the foregoing document with the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the D.C. Circuit by using the Court’s CM/ECF system. 

Service was made on the following through the CM/ECF system: 

Stuart C. McPhail 

smcphail@citizensforethics.org 

Adam J. Rappaport 

arappaport@citizensforethics.org 

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 

455 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Sixth Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Claire J. Evans 

cevans@wileyrein.com 

Jan Witold Baran 

jbaran@wileyrein.com 

Caleb P. Burns 

cburns@wileyrein.com 

Wiley Rein LLP 

1776 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

 /s/ Haven G. Ward 

 Haven G. Ward 

USCA Case #16-5300 Document #1650065 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page 20 of 20