Your web browser is not supported You're using Internet Explorer, some features might not work. Please switch to another browser like Chrome, Firefox, or Edge for a better experience.


An official website of the United States government Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .gov**
            
            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
            
            A **lock** ( A locked padlock ) or **https://** means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Federal Election Commission | United States of America Calendar
           Glossary
          Search
              Search


Menu
      Home
      Campaign finance data
        All data
            Raising
            Spending
            Loans and debts
            Filings and reports
            Candidates
            Committees
            Bulk data
            Campaign finance statistics
        Find elections. Search by state or ZIP code
          Look up contributions from specific individuals
      Help for candidates and committees
        All compliance resources
            Guides
            Forms
            Dates and deadlines
            Trainings
        Learn about electronic filing
          Find and contact your committee's analyst
      Legal resources
        All legal resources
            Advisory opinions
            Enforcement
            Statutes
            Legislation
            Regulations
            Court cases
            Policy and other guidance
        Search across all legal resources
          Search guidance documents
      About
        All about the FEC
            News and announcements
            Commission meetings
            Mission and history
            Leadership and structure
            Reports about the FEC
            Careers
            Working with the FEC
            Contact
        Introduction to campaign finance and elections


- Home
- ›
      FEC Record: Litigation
- ›
      Holmes, et al. v. FEC (Appeals court)

FEC Record: Litigation*Holmes, et al. v. FEC* (Appeals court)April 29, 2016 Plaintiffs Laura Holmes and Paul Jost claim that the per-election limits on individual contributions to candidates violate the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit declined to certify the constitutional questions to the *en banc* court of appeals and granted the FEC's motion for summary judgment. On April 26, 2016, the court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision not to certify the Fifth Amendment question, but reversed the court's decision not to certify the First Amendment question and to grant summary judgment to the Commission on plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims. The court of appeals remanded the case to the district court to certify the First Amendment question. **Background**            The Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) allows individuals to contribute “to any candidate and his authorized political committees with respect to any election for Federal office.” The individual contribution limits apply on a per-candidate, per-election basis, with a separate limit for each election in which the candidate participates (e.g., primary, general, runoff, etc.). See 52 U.S.C. §§ 30116(a)(1)(A) and 30101(1). Rather than making separate primary and general election contributions, each plaintiff wanted to combine the $2,600 limit for the primary election with the $2,600 limit for the general election in order to contribute $5,200 to their preferred candidate's general election campaign. (At the time of the complaint, the per-candidate, per-election limit was $2,600. It has since increased to $2,700 per candidate, per election.) The plaintiffs claim that the Act’s per-election contribution limit violates their First and Fifth Amendment rights by "artificially bifurcating" their contributions between the primary and general elections with no anti-corruption purpose and by limiting the amounts they can contribute to the general election campaigns of their preferred candidates. The district court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments described above as a “false construct” and frivolous. It found their Constitutional claims were matters of settled law and declined to certify the questions to the *en banc* court of appeals. The court also granted the Commission's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs appealed the court's decision not to certify their constitutional questions. **Court of Appeals Decision**            The court of appeals acknowledged the low bar to certification, and that a district court may refuse to certify claims that are "wholly insubstantial," "obviously frivolous," and "obviously without merit." However, the court concluded that the plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge was not "obviously frivolous" or "without merit." The court further stated, “We do not think a district court may decline to certify a constitutional question simply because the plaintiff is arguing against Supreme Court precedent so long as the plaintiff mounts a non-frivolous argument in favor of overturning that precedent. That the plaintiff will be fighting a losing battle in the lower courts does not necessarily make the question 'wholly insubstantial,' 'obviously frivolous,' or 'obviously without merit'." The court also disagreed with the lower court's analysis of Supreme Court precedent, finding that *Buckley v. Valeo* did not specifically address plaintiffs' First Amendment challenge. The court also concluded that certifying the First Amendment question fulfills the Act's purpose of accelerating potential Supreme Court review. The plaintiffs also challenged the per-election contribution limits as unconstitutionally depriving them of their Fifth Amendment right to equal protection by favoring contributors to incumbent candidates who do not face substantial primary opposition. While the lower court declined to certify the claim on the basis that the issue is "settled law," the court of appeals reached the same result under different reasoning. The certification procedure under 52 U.S.C § 30110 applies only to constitutional challenges to the Act. In this case, the court found the Fifth Amendment claim was "so clearly a challenge to [Commission] regulations, and therefore outside the scope of §30110," that it failed to raise a substantial federal question for jurisdictional purposes. The court affirmed the district court's decision not to certify the Fifth Amendment question, but reversed the court's decision not to certify the First Amendment question and to grant summary judgment to the Commission on that claim. The court remanded the case to the district court to certify the First Amendment question to the court of appeals *en banc*. **Resources:** *Holmes, et al. v. FEC* litigation page
 Author
          Zainab  SmithCommunications Specialist


Read next: McChesney, et. al. v. FEC (new)
 Related: Explore campaign finance data »


This information is not intended to replace the law or to change its meaning, nor does this information create or confer any rights for or on any person or bind the Federal Election Commission or the public. The reader is encouraged also to consult the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), Commission regulations (Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations), Commission advisory opinions and applicable court decisions.


About
          Careers
          Press
          Contact
   Privacy and security policy
          Plain language
          No FEAR Act
          Strategy, budget and performance
 Open government
          Protected Voices
          USA.gov
          Inspector General
          FOIA
 OpenFEC API
          GitHub repository
          Release notes
          FEC.gov status


Federal Election Commission
 The FEC's Twitter page
            The FEC's YouTube page Sign up for FECMail


Hide glossary Glossary Search terms