No. 07-2291

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

____________________

GEOFFREY FIEGER, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION

____________________

PROOF BRIEF OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL

____________________

JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ

 Acting Assistant Attorney General

ALAN GERSHEL

 Acting United States Attorney

MICHAEL S. RAAB

 (202) 514-4053

ERIC FLEISIG-GREENE

 (202) 514-4815

 Attorneys, Appellate Staff

 Civil Division, Room 7214

 U.S. Department of Justice

 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

 Washington, DC 20530-0001

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Page

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. ....................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES. ............................................................................ 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................................................................. 2

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. ............................................................................. 3

I. Statutory Background........................................................................... 3

II. Factual Background and Prior Proceedings. ........................................ 6

III. Related Proceedings. .......................................................................... 10

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT. .................................................................... 10

STANDARD OF REVIEW. ................................................................................... 12

ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................... 12

I. THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT DOES NOT

ALTER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S TRADITIONAL

AUTHORITY OVER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.................. 12

III. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO OBTAIN

RELIEF FROM CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OR

PROSECUTION THROUGH A CIVIL LAWSUIT.. ....................... 27

CONCLUSION....................................................................................................... 31

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

DESIGNATION OF JOINT APPENDIX CONTENTS
-iiTABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Page

Cases: 

 Beam v. Gonzales, Civ. No. 07-1227 (N.D. Ill.). ................................................. 10

 Bialek v. Gonzales, Civ. No. 07-00321 (D. Colo.). .............................................. 10

 Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273 (1919). ................................................... 28-29

 Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998)........................................................ 18

 Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323 (1940). .............................................. 28

 Deaver v. Seymour, 822 F.2d 66 (D.C. Cir. 1987). ............................. 12, 28, 30-31

 Galliano v. U.S. Postal Serv., 836 F.2d 1362 (D.C. Cir. 1988). ........................... 22

 Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, 326 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2003). ................. 12, 31

 In re Persico, 522 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1975). ............................................................ 13

 In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888). ...................................................................... 28

 In re Sealed Case, 223 F.3d 775 (D.C. Cir. 2000). ............................................... 23

 In re Sealed Case, 829 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1987). ........................................... 28, 30

 Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973).............................................................. 24

 Marcus v. Gonzales, Civ. No. 07-398 (D. Ariz.). ................................................. 10

 Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004). ................................. 9

 Robert N. Clemens Trust v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.,

485 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2007). ................................................................. 12, 31

 Stolt-Nielsen v. United States, 442 F.3d 177 (3d Cir. 2006). ......................... 28, 29
-iii-

 United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974). .................................................. 29

 United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1965). ...................................... 13, 29

 United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973).................................................. 28, 29

 United States v. Feiger, Crim. No. 07-20414 (E.D. Mich.).. .................... 10, 30, 31

 United States v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 828 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1987). ........ 13, 27

 United States v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs,

638 F.2d 1161 (9th Cir. 1979). ................................................ 8, 11, 18-20, 30

 United States v. LaSalle Nat’l Bank, 437 U.S. 298 (1978)................................... 25

 United States v. Morgan, 222 U.S. 274 (1911)........................................... 8, 13, 19

 United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). ................................................ 12, 29

 United States v. Palumbo Bros., 145 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 1998). ........................... 12

 United States v. Phila. Nat’l Bank, 374 U.S. 321 (1963)................................. 26-27

 United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530 (1971). ........................................................ 30

Statutes:

 2 U.S.C. §§ 431-455. .............................................................................................. 3

 2 U.S.C. § 437c(a)(1).............................................................................................. 3

 2 U.S.C. § 437c(b)(1)............................................................................. 3-4, 7, 8, 13

 2 U.S.C. § 437d..................................................................................................... 25

 2 U.S.C. § 437d(a). ................................................................................................. 4

 2 U.S.C. § 437d(e). ................................................................................................. 4

 2 U.S.C. § 437f(c). ................................................................................................ 22

 2 U.S.C. § 437g...................................................................................... 1, 7, 19, 31

 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(2)............................................................................................. 4

 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(4)(A)(i). .................................................................................. 4

 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(5)(C). ............................................................... 5, 13, 20-21, 23
-iv-

 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(6)............................................................................................. 3

 2 U.S.C. § 437g(c). .......................................................................................... 5, 14

 2 U.S.C. § 437g(d)(1). ........................................................................................... 3

 2 U.S.C. § 437g(d)(2)-(3). ............................................................................... 5, 23

 2 U.S.C. § 441a. ...................................................................................................... 3

 2 U.S.C. § 441b....................................................................................................... 3

 2 U.S.C. § 441f. ...................................................................................................... 3

 28 U.S.C. § 516..................................................................................................... 12

 28 U.S.C. § 1291..................................................................................................... 2

 28 U.S.C. § 1331..................................................................................................... 2

 28 U.S.C. § 1361..................................................................................................... 2

 28 U.S.C. § 2201.................................................................................................... 1

 28 U.S.C. § 2202.................................................................................................... 1

Rules and Regulations:

 Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3). ..................................................................................... 30

 11 C.F.R. § 112.1(b). ............................................................................................ 22

 43 Fed. Reg. 5441 (Feb. 8, 1978). ....................................................................... 5-6

Legislative Materials:

 Pub. L. No. 93-433, § 208, sec. 310(b), 88 Stat. 1263, 1281 (Oct. 15, 1974). ..... 16

 Pub. L. No. 93-433, § 208, sec. 310(c), 88 Stat. 1263, 1282 (Oct. 15, 1974). ..... 21

 Pub. L. No. 93-443, § 208, sec. 314(b), 88 Stat. 1263, 1285 (Oct. 15, 1974). ..... 25

 H.R. 5010, 96th Cong. § 108, sec. 309(a)(5)(C), at 130 (1979). .......................... 22

 S. 3044, 93d Cong., § 207, sec. 309(d), at 49 (2d Sess. 1974). ........................... 15

 H.R. Rep. No. 93-1438 (2d Sess. 1974) (Conf. Rep.). .................................... 15-16

 H.R. Rep. No. 94-917 (2d Sess. 1976)............................................................ 17, 21

 H.R. Rep. No. 94-1057 (2d Sess. 1976) (Conf. Rep.). ......................................... 17

 H.R. Rep. No. 96-422, at 22 (1979)...................................................................... 21

 S. Rep. No. 94-677 (2d Sess. 1976)...................................................................... 17
-v-

 93 Cong. Rec. H10327 (daily ed. Oct. 10, 1974).................................................. 16

 93 Cong. Rec. H10331 (daily ed. Oct. 10, 1974)....................................... 16, 25-26

 93 Cong. Rec. S18525 (daily ed. Oct. 8, 1974). ................................................... 16

 94 Cong. Rec. S3860-61 (daily ed. Mar. 22, 1976). ............................................. 17

 94 Cong. Rec. S6479 (daily ed., May 4, 1976)..................................................... 18

 122 Cong. Rec. S12471 (1976)............................................................................. 18

Miscellaneous:

 Fed. Election Comm’n, Legislative History of Federal Election

Campaign Act Amendments of 1974..................................... 15-16, 21, 25-26

 Fed. Election Comm’n, Legislative History of Federal Election

Campaign Act Amendments of 1976................................................ 17, 18, 21

 Fed. Election Comm’n, Legislative History of Federal Election

Campaign Act Amendments of 1979...................................................... 21, 22

 Public Integrity Section, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Federal Prosecution

of Election Offenses 205 (7th ed. Aug. 2007)................................................ 6
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Counsel for the United States Attorney General stands ready to present oral

argument to the extent that theCourt believes argument would aid in its consideration

of this appeal. 
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-2291

____________________

GEOFFREY FIEGER, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION

____________________

PROOF BRIEF OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL

____________________

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Plaintiffs brought suit in district court seeking declaratory relief pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 & 2202, alleging that a grand jury investigation of their activities

violated the Federal Election Campaign Act, 2 U.S.C. § 437g. (R.1 Application for

Writ of Mandamus and Complaint, pgs. 2, 4-7, Apx. pgs. ___.) Plaintiffs also sought

declaratory and mandamus relief against the Federal Election Commission for its

alleged failure to investigate plaintiffs’ conduct. (R.1 Application for Writ of
- 2 -

Mandamus and Complaint, pgs. 6-7, Apx. pgs. ___.) Plaintiffs invoked the district

court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1361. (R.1 Application for Writ of

Mandamus and Complaint, pg. 2, Apx. pg. ___.)

The district court entered final judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ suit on August

15, 2007. (R.34 Judgment, pg. 1, Apx. pg. ____.) Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of

appeal on October 10. (R.35 Notice of Appeal, pgs. 1-2, Apx. pgs. ____.) This Court

has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1. Whether the district court properly held that the Federal Election Campaign

Act does not divest the Attorney General of his traditional authority over criminal

investigations and prosecutions.

2. Whether, in any event, declaratory relief is precluded in a civil lawsuit that

seeks to collaterally challenge a grand jury investigation and indictment.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiffs brought suit against the United States Attorney General and the

Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, complaining of an alleged grand jury

investigation into plaintiffs’ violation of federal campaign finance laws. Plaintiffs

claimed that the grand jury’s investigation was unlawful under the Federal Election

Campaign Act, and sought declaratory relief. (R.1 Application for Writ of Mandamus

and Complaint, pgs. 2, 4-7, Apx. pgs. ___.) Plaintiffs also alleged that the Federal
- 3 -

Election Commission had not fulfilled its statutory duty to investigate plaintiffs, and

sought declaratory and mandamus relief on that basis. (R.1 Application for Writ of

Mandamus and Complaint, pgs. 6-7, Apx. pgs. ___.)

The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ suit in August 2007, holding that the

Federal Election Campaign Act placed no restrictions upon the investigative or

prosecutorial authority of the Attorney General and rejecting plaintiffs’ request for

relief against the Federal ElectionCommission. (R.33, Opinion and Order, pgs. 6-19,

Apx. pgs. ___.) Plaintiffs appealed.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

I. Statutory Background

1. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, 2 U.S.C. §§ 431-

455, imposes a variety of requirements on campaign expenditures and contributions

in the federal election process. Among other provisions, the Act places dollar limits

on individual campaign contributions, 2 U.S.C. § 441a, prohibits certain corporate

contributions, 2 U.S.C. § 441b, and forbids contributions made in the name of

another, 2 U.S.C. § 441f. Violations of the Act carry both civil and criminal

penalties. 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(6), (d)(1).

The Act establishes a Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) with six voting

members, no more than three of whom may be affiliated with the same political party.

2 U.S.C. § 437c(a)(1). The Commission possesses “exclusive jurisdiction with
- 4 -

respect to the civil enforcement” of the Act’s provisions, 2 U.S.C. § 437c(b)(1), as

well as the authority to issue subpoenas, administer oaths, render advisory opinions

regarding compliance with the Act, and litigate civil actions through its general

counsel, 2 U.S.C. § 437d(a). The Act provides that, as a general matter, “the power

of the Commission to initiate civil actions * * * shall be the exclusive civil remedy

for the enforcement of the provisions of this Act.” 2 U.S.C. § 437d(e).

In cases where the Commission, by an affirmative vote of at least four

members, finds reason to believe that a person has violated or is about to violate the

Act, the Commission must notify that person of the factual basis for the alleged

violation and make an investigation. 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(2). If the Commission

subsequently finds probable cause of such violation by an affirmative vote of at least

four members, it must typically “attempt, for a period of at least 30 days, to correct

or prevent such violation by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and

persuasion, and to enter into a conciliation agreement with any person involved.”

2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(4)(A)(i). The Commission may enter into a conciliation

agreement only by an affirmative vote of at least four members, and any such

agreement, if abided by, provides “a complete bar to any further action by the

Commission, including the bringing of a civil proceeding.” Id.

If the Commission determines, by an affirmative vote of at least four members,

that a knowing and willful violation of the Act’s criminal provisions has occurred or
- 5 -

is about to occur, it may refer the violation to the Attorney General without regard to

the Act’s conciliation provisions. 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(5)(C). In such cases, the

Attorney General “shall report to the Commission any action taken by the Attorney

General regarding the apparent violation” at regular intervals until the matter is

concluded. 2 U.S.C. § 437g(c). If a criminal defendant has entered into a

conciliation agreement with the Commission that remains in effect, he may introduce

the agreement to establish lack of knowledge or intent at trial, as well as to mitigate

his penalty at sentencing. 2 U.S.C. § 437g(d)(2)-(3).

2. Since 1977, shortly after the Federal Election Campaign Act was amended

to grant exclusive civil jurisdiction over violations of the Act to the FEC, the division

of authority between the Commission and the Department of Justice has been

governed by a memorandum of understanding between the two agencies. The

memorandum, which was originally published in the Federal Register shortly after its

adoption, see 43 Fed. Reg. 5441 (Feb. 8, 1978),sets forth the roles of each agency in

enforcing the civil and criminal provisions of the Act. The memorandum “recognizes

the Federal Election Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction in civil matters” under the

Act, and describes the circumstances in which the Commission will refer willful and

knowing violations to the Department of Justice. Id. The memorandum further

provides:
 Congress’ expansion of the campaign finance laws in 2002 has prompted the

1

Department and the FEC to begin negotiations for an updated memorandum of

understanding. See Public Integrity Section, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Federal

Prosecution of Election Offenses 205 (7th ed. Aug. 2007). These developments do

not address the Attorney General’s underlying authority to investigate and prosecute

criminal violations of the campaign finance laws independent of referral from the

FEC. See id. at 177.

- 6 -

Where information comes to the attention of the Department

indicating a probable violation of Title 2, the Department will apprise

the Commission of such information at the earliest opportunity.

Where the Department determines that evidence of a probable

violation of Title 2 amounts to a significant and substantial knowing and

wilful violation, the Department will continue its investigation to

prosecution when appropriate and necessary to its prosecutorial duties

and functions, and will endeavor to make available to the Commission

evidence developed during the course of its investigation subject to

restricting law. * * * *

Where the Department determines that evidence of a probable

violation of title 2 does not amount to a significant and substantial

knowing and wilful violation * * * the Department will refer the matter

to the Commission as promptly as possible for its consideration of the

wide range of appropriate remedies available to the Commission.

Id.

1

II. Factual Background and Prior Proceedings

1. In February 2007, Geoffrey Fieger, along with his law firm and the firm’s

office manager, brought suit against the Attorney General and the Chairman of the

Federal Election Commission. (R.33 Opinion and Order, pg. 2, Apx. pg. ___.)

Plaintiffs claimed that they were the target of an ongoing federal grand jury
- 7 -

investigation for violations of campaign finance laws, and that the FEC had failed to

conduct a civil investigation into those violations. (R.1 Application for Writ of

Mandamus and Complaint, pgs. 3-4, 6, Apx. pgs. ___.) Plaintiffs alleged that because

the Federal Election Commission had not completed a civil investigation and referred

the matter to the Attorney General, the grand jury’s criminal investigation was

contrary to “the jurisdictional requirements” of the Federal Election Campaign Act,

2 U.S.C. § 437g. (R.1 Application for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint, pg. 5, Apx.

pg. ___.) Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief from grand jury investigation and

prosecution, and declaratory and mandamus relief against the FEC. (R.1 Application

for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint, pgs. 5, 7, Apx. pgs. ___.)

2. In August 2007, on cross-motions by the parties, the district court dismissed

plaintiffs’ suit. The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the Attorney General

lacked authority to conduct a grand jury investigation or prosecution without a

referral from the Federal Election Commission, noting that while “the Act specifically

provides that the Commission has ‘exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the civil

enforcement of [campaign finance] provisions,’” it contains no restriction or

provision governing the Attorney General’s criminal jurisdiction. (R.33 Opinion and

Order, pgs. 8-9, Apx. pgs. ___ (quoting 2 U.S.C. § 437c(b)(1)).)

Moreover, because plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Act would limit the Attorney

General’s plenary criminal authority, the court held that such a construction required
- 8 -

“a ‘clear and unambiguous’ directive from Congress.” (R.33 Opinion and Order, pg.

9, Apx. pg. ___ (quoting United States v. Morgan, 222 U.S. 274, 282 (1911)).) The

court found no clear and unambiguous intent in the Federal Election Campaign Act

to so restrict the Attorney General’s authority. To the contrary, the court noted that

the statutory provision granting the FEC exclusive jurisdiction “applies only to civil

enforcement of the Act.” (R.33 Opinion and Order, pg. 9, Apx. pg. ___ (citing 2

U.S.C. § 437c(b)(1)).) The FEC’s civil enforcement was governed by a detailed set

of administrative procedures and requirements, but “none of those requirements

mentions the Attorney General, let alone the timing of when the Attorney General

may engage in criminal enforcement actions.” (R.33 Opinion and Order, pg. 10 n.2,

Apx. pg. ___.) And although the Act granted the FEC authority to refer knowing and

willful violations to the Attorney General, “nothing in that (or any other) provision

of the Act addresses, much less restricts, the authority of the Attorney General (or a

grand jury) to investigate activities that might constitute criminal violations of the

Act.” (R.33 Opinion and Order, pg. 10, Apx. pg. ___.)

This conclusion, the court held, wasreinforced by the legislative history of the

statute, as well as the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. International Union

of Operating Engineers, 638 F.2d 1161 (9th Cir. 1979), which had interpreted the Act

in an identical manner. (R.33 Opinion and Order, pgs. 11-14, Apx. pgs. ___.)

Subsequent amendments to the Act, which plaintiffs claimed had repudiated the Ninth
- 9 -

Circuit’s ruling, had no bearing on the Attorney General’s criminal authority. (R.33

Opinion and Order, pgs. 13-14, Apx. pgs. ___.) Finding no compelling suggestion

to the contrary in the statute’s text or history, the court held that any alleged grand

jury investigation of plaintiffs was consistent with the Federal Election Campaign

Act, and dismissed plaintiffs’ claim against the Attorney General.

The court held plaintiffs’ claims against the FEC to be similarly without merit.

By plaintiffs’ own account, the Commission had initiated an investigation into their

conduct. (R.33 Opinion and Order, pgs. 16-17, Apx. pgs. ___.) Plaintiffs’ allegation

that the investigation was not proceeding with sufficient speed did not establish that

the agency had “‘failed to take a discrete agency action that it is required to take,’”

as needed to make out a claimunder the Administrative Procedure Act or mandamus.

(R.33 Opinion and Order, pg. 15, Apx. pg. ___ (quoting Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness

Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 64 (2004)).) To the contrary, the court noted that “an agency

authorized to conduct investigations has broad authority to control the conduct and

timing of its investigation.” (R.33 Opinion and Order, pg. 16, Apx. pg. ___.)

Moreover, the court held that the Federal Election Campaign Act precluded judicial

review over the Commission’s handling of administrative complaints except in

limited circumstances not satisfied by plaintiffs, further supporting dismissal of the

claims against the FEC. (R.33 Opinion and Order, pgs. 17-18, Apx. pgs. ___.)
- 10 -

III. Related Proceedings

At nearly the same time that plaintiffs brought this suit against the FEC

Chairman and the Attorney General, three other sets of plaintiffs affiliated with (and

represented by) Fieger’s law firm filed actions in the district courts of Colorado,

Illinois, and Arizona, raising claims virtually identical to those presented here. The

Colorado suit was dismissed on grounds closely resembling those adopted by the

district court in this case, and is now on appeal to the Tenth Circuit. Bialek v.

Gonzales, Civ. No. 07-00321, 2007 WL 1879989, at *2-5 (D. Colo. June 28, 2007),

appeal docketed, No. 07-1284 (10th Cir. July 13, 2007). Motions to dismiss are

currently pending in the remaining suits. Beam v. Gonzales, Civ. No. 07-1227 (N.D.

Ill., suit filed Mar. 2, 2007); Marcus v. Gonzales, Civ. No. 07-398 (D. Ariz., suit filed

Feb. 21, 2007).

In August 2007, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Michigan handed

down a ten-count indictment against Fieger for violations of the Federal Election

Campaign Act and related offenses. That prosecution is currently pending. United

States v. Fieger, Crim. No. 07-20414 (E.D. Mich., indictment unsealed Aug. 24,

2007).

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ challenge to the Attorney

General’s grand jury investigation. As plaintiffs acknowledge, authority over federal
- 11 -

criminal investigations and prosecutions is vested exclusively in the Attorney General

absent an express contrary command fromCongress. Nothing in the Federal Election

Campaign Act disturbs that traditional allocation of power. The Act’s grant of

exclusive civil jurisdiction to the Federal Election Commission is just that--a grant

of civil jurisdiction. The statute says nothing about the Attorney General’s criminal

enforcement under the Act, and plaintiffs’ attemptsto draw contrary inferences from

statutory limits on the Federal Election Commission are without merit. That

conclusion is further buttressed by the legislative history of the Act, and by the Ninth

Circuit’s decision in United States v. International Union of Operating Engineers,

638 F.2d 1161 (9th Cir. 1979), which rejected precisely the claims plaintiffs raise

here.

Plaintiffs’ claim against the Attorney General also fails because individuals

may not obtain declaratory relief from criminal investigation or prosecution through

civil litigation. Longstanding principles of equity jurisprudence prohibit parties from

interfering with federal criminal investigations or indictments through the guise of

a civil lawsuit. That rule is founded both on separation-of-powers principles and on

the traditional precept that equitable relief will not lie when an adequate alternative

remedy is available. Geoffrey Fieger has been indicted and is currently facing trial.

He was entitled to challenge the validity of his indictment on the basis of the Federal

Election Campaign Act in his criminal proceedings, but elected not to do so. He
- 12 -

cannot now seek to halt those proceedings through a collateral civil challenge.

“Prospective defendants cannot, by bringing ancillary equitable proceedings,

circumvent federal criminal procedure.” Deaver v. Seymour, 822 F.2d 66, 71 (D.C.

Cir. 1987). That is precisely the effect of plaintiffs’ suit, and the district court’s

dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim against the Attorney General is equally justified on this

alternative ground.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews a dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo. Robert N.

Clemens Trust v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., 485 F.3d 840, 845 (6th Cir. 2007). The

Court may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Id.; see Hutcherson v.

Lauderdale County, 326 F.3d 747, 756 (6th Cir. 2003).

ARGUMENT

I. THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT DOES

NOT ALTER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S

TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY OVER CRIMINAL

INVESTIGATIONS.

1. “Congress has vested in the Attorney General the power to conduct the

criminal litigation of the United States Government.” United States v. Nixon, 418

U.S. 683, 694 (1974) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 516). Accordingly, “criminal prosecution

is ‘an executive function within the exclusive prerogative of the Attorney General.’”

United States v. Palumbo Bros., Inc., 145 F.3d 850, 865 (7th Cir. 1998) (quoting
- 13 -

United States v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 828 F.2d 1356, 1366 (9th Cir. 1987)). See

also In re Persico, 522 F.2d 41, 54 (2d Cir. 1975) (same) (citing United States v. Cox,

342 F.2d 167, 190 (5th Cir. 1965) (Wisdom, J., specially concurring)). Congress may

entrust these investigatory and prosecutorial powers to another Executive officer, but

it has long been established that “[t]o graft such an exception upon the criminal law

would require a clear and unambiguous expression of the legislative will.” United

States v. Morgan, 222 U.S. 274, 282 (1911).

The Federal Election Campaign Act contains no such clear and unambiguous

direction. The Act does not restrict or even mention the Attorney General’s authority

over criminal violations, nor does it vest criminal jurisdiction in any other agency or

Executive official. To the contrary, the Act provides that the Federal Election

Commission “shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the civil enforcement”

of the Act, 2 U.S.C. § 437c(b)(1), but does not work any similar change in criminal

enforcement. Congress’ silence with regard to criminal matters is reason enough to

conclude that it did not intend to disturb the traditional responsibilities of the

Attorney General. Congress’ decision to confer exclusive civil jurisdiction to the

Commission, while including no such provision as to criminal jurisdiction, makes that

conclusion even more inescapable.

The authority by which the Commission may refer cases to the Attorney

General for criminal investigation, 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(5)(C), is wholly consistent
- 14 -

with this reading. Plaintiffs contend (Br. 17) that the subsection “require[s] a referral

from the FEC before the Attorney General [can] initiate criminal proceedings.” But

that is not what the statute says. To the contrary, the statute provides only that, if the

Commission votes to find probable cause of certain knowing and willful violations

of the Act, “it may refer such apparent violation[s] to the Attorney General.” 

As the district court properly concluded, nothing in the referral provision

“addresses, much lessrestricts, the authority ofthe Attorney General (or a grand jury)

to investigate activities that might constitute criminal violations of the Act.” (R.33

Opinion and Order, pg. 10, Apx. pg. ___.) The subsection by its terms addresses the

Commission’s authority. A referral to the Attorney General bears the imprimatur of

the Commission, and requires regular reports from the Attorney General on any action

taken regarding the matter. See 2 U.S.C. § 437g(c). The Act’s provisions ensure that

such a step is not undertaken by the Commission lightly. The statute contains no

language, however, to suggest that the Attorney General may not act on the basis of

other information or referrals, and plaintiffs offer no reason why the statute’s silence

should be read to express such a limitation. As the district court held, “there is no

* * * language in the Act which could constitute a prohibition or restriction on the

authority of the Attorney General to investigate or charge a criminal violation of

federal election law,” let alone a clear and unambiguous instruction to that effect.
- 15 -

(R.33 Opinion and Order, pg. 10, Apx. pg. ___.) Plaintiffs’ claim against the

Attorney General accordingly fails.

2. The legislative history of the Federal Election Campaign Act further

underscores that its provisions have no bearing on the Attorney General’s criminal

authority. When Congress created the Federal Election Commission in 1974, it

considered and rejected language that would have conditioned the prosecutorial acts

of the Attorney General on the Commission’s approval. The original Senate bill

provided that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commission shall

be the primary civil and criminal enforcement agency for violations of the provisions

of this Act * * * . Any violation of any such provision shall be prosecuted by the

Attorney General or Department of Justice personnel only after consultation with, and

with the consent of, the Commission.” S. 3044, 93d Cong., § 207,sec. 309(d), at 49

(2d Sess. 1974), reprinted in Fed. Election Comm’n, Legislative History of Federal

Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, at 51 (1977) [hereinafter 1974

Legislative History]. Congress discarded that provision in conference, replacing it

with the House’s language that afforded the Commission only “primary jurisdiction

with respect to the civil enforcement of such provisions.” H.R. Rep. No. 93-1438, at

22 (2d Sess. 1974) (Conf. Rep.), reprinted in 1974 Legislative History at 966. In so

doing, the Conference Report explicitly disclaimed the Senate’s proposal: “The

primary jurisdiction of the Commission to enforce the provisions of the Act is not
- 16 -

intended to interfere in any way with the activities of the Attorney General or

Department of Justice personnel in performing their duties under the laws of the

United States.” Id. at 94, reprinted in 1974 Legislative History at 1038. 

Congressional statements reinforce this understanding. Senator Cannon, one

of the key supporters of the Act, explained when introducing the Conference Bill that

“the Department of Justice would not be deprived of any of its power to initiate civil

or criminal actions in response to referrals by the commission or complaints from

other sources.” 93 Cong. Rec. S18525 (daily ed. Oct. 8, 1974) (statement of Sen.

Cannon), reprinted in 1974 Legislative History at 1079. Similar sentiments were

echoed by the Act’s supporters in the House. See, e.g., 93 Cong. Rec. H10327 (daily

ed. Oct. 10, 1974) (statement of Rep. Hays) (“We allow [the Commission] to go to

court independently on civil matters * * * but all criminal matters must still be

handled by the Justice Department.”), reprinted in 1974 Legislative History at 1105;

93 Cong. Rec. H10331 (daily ed. Oct. 10, 1974) (statement of Rep. Frenzel)

(“Criminal enforcement remains with the Justice Department, but the Attorney

General is held accountable to the Commission for reporting on the disposition of

violations referred to him.”), reprinted in 1974 Legislative History at 1109. The

Conference language was enacted into law without alteration. Pub. L. No. 93-433,

§ 208,sec. 310(b), 88 Stat. 1263, 1281 (Oct. 15, 1974), reprinted in 1974 Legislative

History at 1153.
- 17 -

When Congress amended the Act in 1976 to grant the Commission exclusive

civil jurisdiction, it again made clear that the change did not affect the Attorney

General’s criminal powers, but was limited to civil enforcement. The House bill that

would ultimately become law “follow[ed] the pattern set in the 1974 Amendments”

by excluding from the FEC’s jurisdiction “complaints directed to the Attorney

General and seeking the institution of a criminal proceeding.” H.R. Rep. No. 94-917,

at 4 (2d Sess. 1976), reprinted in Fed. Election Comm’n, Legislative History of

Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976, at 804 (1977) [hereinafter

1976 Legislative History]; see S. Rep. No. 94-677, at 7 (2d Sess. 1976) (noting that

“[t]he proposed changes would give the Commission exclusive civil enforcement

authority,” but suggesting no change to the Attorney General’s authority over

criminal violations), reprinted in 1976 Legislative History at 283; H.R. Rep. No. 94-

1057, at 43 (2d Sess. 1976) (Conf. Rep.) (“The Conference substitute is the same as

the House amendment and the Senate bill.”), reprinted in 1976 Legislative History at

1037. That sentiment was again echoed by Senator Cannon, who explained that

“[t]he bill would grant the exclusive civil enforcement of the act to the Commission

to avoid confusion and overlapping with the Department of Justice, but at the same

time, retain the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice for the criminal prosecution

of any violations of this act.” 94 Cong. Rec. S3860-61 (daily ed. Mar. 22, 1976)

(statement of Sen. Cannon), reprinted in 1976 Legislative History at 470-71.
- 18 -

Plaintiffs’ sole response to this history is an isolated floor statement by a

staunch opponent of the Federal Election Campaign Act, Senator Brock. See Br. 17-

18, 26 (quoting 122 Cong. Rec. S12471 (1976)); 94 Cong. Rec. S6479 (daily ed.,

May 4, 1976) (statement of Sen. Brock) (labeling the Act “a deceit, a sham, and a

fraud on the American public”), reprinted in 1976 Legislative History at 1109. As the

district court properly recognized, a single paragraph from an opponent of the Act is

entitled to little weight in determining Congressional intent. (R.33 Opinion and

Order, pgs. 11-12, Apx. pgs. ___.) See Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 196

(1998) (“[T]he fears and doubts of the opposition are no authoritative guide to the

construction of legislation. In their zeal to defeat a bill, they understandably tend to

overstate its reach.” (quotation marks and citations omitted)). Plaintiffs’ suggestion

that the definitive statement of Congress’ intent lies not in the language of its statute,

its Conference Reports, orthe statements oflegislative sponsors, but rather in the lone

views of a dissenting Senator, stretches an argument for “clear and unambiguous

intent” well beyond its breaking point.

3. The Ninth Circuit has also rejected precisely the argument that plaintiffs

now press before this Court. In United States v. International Union of Operating

Engineers, 638 F.2d 1161 (9th Cir. 1979), appellees had sought dismissal of their

indictments for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, claiming that the

Attorney General was required “to exhaust the administrative remedy before the
- 19 -

Federal Election Commission (FEC), available under section 437g of the Act, before

seeking an indictment.” Id. at 1162. Like the district court in this case, the Ninth

Circuit began its analysis from the proposition that any infringement on the Attorney

General’s prosecutorial authority “‘would require a clear and unambiguous

expression of the legislative will.’” Id. (quoting Morgan, 222 U.S. at 282). After

assessing the civil enforcement scheme provided by the Act, the Court determined

that “[n]othing in these provisions suggests, much less clearly and [un]ambiguously

states, that action by the Department of Justice to prosecute a violation of the Act is

conditioned upon prior consideration of the alleged violation by the FEC. Indeed, it

would strain the language to imply such a condition.” Id. at 1163.

In particular, the Ninth Circuit explained, “[t]he fact that the FEC may refer

certain complaints to the Department of Justice for prosecution, after administrative

processing, does not in itself imply that administrative processing and referral are

prerequisite to the initiation of litigation by the Attorney General.” 638 F.2d at 1163

(citation omitted). The court likewise held that the statute’s procedural requirements

for enforcement actions and conciliation agreements did not confine the Attorney

General’s prosecutorial discretion, but rather established limits on the Commission’s

ability to investigate and pursue remedies for civil infractions. Id. at 1164. In short,

those provisions “detail duties of the FEC and rights of persons complained against,
- 20 -

not limitations upon the statutory power of the Attorney General to initiate

prosecution on behalf of the United States.” Id. at 1163.

The court found additional support for its interpretation in the Act’s extensive

legislative history. 638 F.2d at 1165-68. It further noted that the FEC and the Justice

Department, through their 1977 memorandum of understanding, had

contemporaneously interpreted the Act to permit criminal investigations by the

Attorney General without first exhausting the Commission’s civil remedies. That

interpretation, the court held, was also entitled to “[s]ubstantial deference.” Id. at

1166. The court concluded:

In sum, neither the language nor the legislative history of the Act

provides the kind of “clear and unambiguous expression of legislative

will” necessary to support a holding that Congress sought to alter the

traditionally broad scope of the Attorney General’s prosecutorial

discretion by requiring initial administrative screening of alleged

violations of the Act. On the contrary, the language and legislative

history indicatesthat while centralizing and strengthening the authority

of the FEC to enforce the Act administratively and by civil proceedings,

Congress intended to leave undisturbed the Justice Department’s

authority to prosecute criminally a narrow range of aggravated offenses.

Id. at 1168.

Plaintiffs attempt to escape the force of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in

International Union by contending that it “has now been superceded by subsequent

amendment to the Act in 1980.” Br. 18. In particular, plaintiffs point to the Act’s

requirement that the Commission refer violations to the Attorney General only “by
- 21 -

an affirmative vote of 4 of its members.” Br. 19 (quoting 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(5)(C));

see Br. 22-24 (same).

That claim is without merit. The provision to which plaintiffs cite is not

substantively different from any other version of the Act since the Commission’s

formation. As far back as 1974, when the Commission was first created as a sixmember body, it wasrequired that “[a]ll decisions of the Commission with respect to

its duties and powers under the provisions of this title shall be made by a majority

vote of the members of the Commission.” Pub. L. No. 93-433, § 208, sec. 310(c), 88

Stat. at 1282, reprinted in 1974 Legislative History at 1154. As Congress recognized,

this amounted to “the requirement of four votes for affirmative action” well before

the 1979 amendments cited by plaintiffs. H.R. Rep. No. 94-917, at 4, reprinted in

1976 Legislative History at 804. Consistent with that understanding, Congress

described the 1979 language as merely “incorporat[ing] the language * * * of the

current Act regarding referral of knowing and willful violations to the Attorney

General.” H.R. Rep. No. 96-422, at 22 (1979), reprinted in Fed. Election Comm’n,

Legislative History of Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1979, at 206

(1983) [hereinafter 1979 Legislative History].

Plaintiffs’ assertion that the amendment was enacted “to eliminate any

confusion that might have been caused by the erroneous 1979 Ninth Circuit opinion”

(Br. 22) is incorrect. Plaintiffs cite no legislative history to support that claim. It is
- 22 -

contradicted by the Congressional Reports preceding and accompanying the 1979

amendments. And as the district court recognized, it is further belied by the fact that

the language in question was first reported on September 7, 1979, three weeks before

the Ninth Circuit’s decision in International Union. (R.33, Opinion and Order, pg.

13, Apx. pg. ___ (citing H.R. 5010, 96th Cong. § 108, sec. 309(a)(5)(C), at 130

(1979), reprinted in 1979 Legislative History at 412).) Well after the 1979

amendments, the D.C. Circuit cited approvingly to the Ninth Circuit’s holding in

International Union, noting that it was “settled that criminal enforcement of FECA

provisions may originate either with the FEC or the Department of Justice.” Galliano

v. U.S. Postal Serv., 836 F.2d 1362, 1368 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (citation omitted).

That conclusion holds equally in this case.

4. Plaintiffs’ remaining arguments offer no compelling reason to disregard the

clear language and legislative history of the statute, as well as the settled law of two

other Circuits.

Plaintiffs suggest that the Attorney General’s prosecutorial discretion would

interfere with the Commission’s ability to provide advisory opinions and rules or

enter into conciliation agreements. Br. 20-22. Those contentions rest on

misunderstandings of the Commission’s civil enforcement powers. The

Commission’s advisory opinions bear only on prospective conduct, 11 C.F.R.

§ 112.1(b), and afford immunity fromsanction only for individuals who subsequently
- 23 -

rely upon them. See 2 U.S.C. § 437f(c). Such opinions are therefore of no import to

previously completed conduct that might be the subject of a criminal investigation.

In any event, the Commission’s advisory opinions and rules are not “rendered

meaningless” (Br. 21) by a criminal investigation or prosecution: to the contrary, the

interpretations of the Commission are entitled to as great weight in criminal

prosecutions as in civil enforcement suits. In re Sealed Case, 223 F.3d 775, 779 (D.C.

Cir. 2000).

The Commission’s ability to enter into conciliation agreements is likewise

consistent with the Attorney General’s criminal authority. The Commission need not

pursue the conciliation process at all in cases where it refers potential violations to

the Attorney General. 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(5)(C). Moreover, nothing prevents the

Commission from entering into such agreements during the pendency of a criminal

prosecution. Conciliation agreements have force both as evidence to establish lack

of knowledge or intent at trial, and as mitigating evidence at sentencing. 2 U.S.C.

§ 437g(d)(2)-(3). Rather than suggest a conflict between the Attorney General and

the Commission, conciliation agreements--like advisory opinions--help to ensure

consistency between the two agencies. These powers are a substantial reason why

plaintiffs’ specter of “inevitable conflicts” (Br. 21) between the Attorney General and

the Commission has not materialized despite the concurrent exercise of their

responsibilities over the past three decades.
- 24 -

Plaintiffs assert that independent prosecutions by the Attorney General would

jeopardize the Commission’s investigations due to witnesses invoking their Fifth

Amendment rights. Br. 27-30. That argument misunderstands the contours of the

Fifth Amendment, which does not turn on whether an individual is the subject of a

criminal investigation, but rather “privileges him not to answer official questions put

to him in any * * * proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the

answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.” Lefkowitz v. Turley,

414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973). Because the Fifth Amendment’s privilege turns on the

potential for incrimination, and not on whether an individual is subject to

investigation, witnesses in Commission proceedings would have the same Fifth

Amendment privilege whether or not the Attorney General could independently

pursue investigation or prosecution at the same time.

Indeed, as the district court recognized, “[t]he civil and regulatory laws of the

United States frequently overlap with the criminal laws * * * thereby creating the

possibility of parallel civil and criminal proceedings, either successive or

simultaneous.” (R.33 Opinion and Order, pg. 14, Apx. pg. ___.) The Commission’s

civil powers are no different from those of myriad other agencies that may act

concurrently with a criminal investigation or prosecution by the Attorney General.

The FEC retainsits broad powers to investigate and remedy civil infractions, without

regard to whether criminal proceedings are pending at the same time. See
 Plaintiffs’ characterization of the reporting requirement as a “new provision,” 2

Br. 20, is incorrect. The requirement has existed since the Commission’s creation.

Pub. L. No. 93-443, § 208, sec. 314(b), 88 Stat. at 1285, reprinted in 1974 Legislative

History at 1157.

- 25 -

2 U.S.C. § 437d. Compare United States v. LaSalle Nat’l Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 312

(1978) (citing statutory limits on Internal Revenue Service fraud investigations after

referral to the Justice Department). Absent Congress’ clear intent to the contrary,

criminal authority remains “reserved to the Department of Justice,” with “the grand

jury as a principal tool of criminal accusation.” Id.

Equally misguided is plaintiffs’ allegation (Br. 19-20, 23-24) that the referral

and reporting provisions of the Act are rendered meaningless if the Attorney General

can independently conduct investigations. As Congress made clear when it initially

enacted those provisions in 1974, the requirements do not prevent the Attorney 2

General from investigating violations independently. See supra pages 15-17.

Although the Attorney General retains the discretion whether to prosecute particular

cases, it was Congress’ hope that the reporting requirements and gravity of the

Commission’sreferrals would bring additional violationsto the Justice Department’s

attention--not prevent it from pursuing cases on its own. See, e.g., 93 Cong. Rec.

H10331 (daily ed. Oct. 10, 1974) (statement of Rep. Frenzel) (“Criminal enforcement

remains with the Justice Department, but the Attorney General is held accountable to
- 26 -

the Commission for reporting on the disposition of violations referred to him.”),

reprinted in 1974 Legislative History at 1109.

Plaintiffs assert, without support, that “[s]ince 1974, virtually all campaign

finance cases have been resolved by the FEC”; that “[i]n the history of the United

States, no case resembling the facts here has ever been criminally charged or tried to

a verdict before a jury”; and that “the FEC has resolved, civilly, about 99.9% of

campaign finance disputes without the interference or intervention of the Attorney

General.” Br. 5 n.1, 25-26. See also Br. 44. Even if those claims were not squarely

contradicted by the prosecutions cited by the Commission, FEC Br. 9-10, they would

have no bearing on the question before this Court. The position of the Justice

Department and the Commission, as memorialized in the agencies’ thirty-year-old

memorandum of understanding, is that the Attorney General possesses independent

authority to investigate potential criminal violations of the campaign finance laws.

That conclusion is compelled by the statute’s text and legislative history. The

Attorney General’s criminal enforcement power is not altered by plaintiffs’ bare

assertion that he has not prosecuted enough cases.

Finally, plaintiffs claim that the Attorney General is foreclosed from

conducting a grand jury investigation by the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Br. 31-

34. But that doctrine applies only “in cases where protection of the integrity of a

regulatory scheme dictates preliminary resort to the agency which administers the
- 27 -

scheme.” United States v. Phila. Nat’l Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 353 (1963). Plaintiffs’

argument for primary jurisdiction amounts to no more than a repetition of their other

attempts to create a “clear and unambiguous” restriction on the Attorney General’s

authority. See Gen. Dynamics Corp., 828 F.2d at 1366 & n.18 (“For all practical

purposes, there is no difference between requiring exhaustion of and requiring

deferral to an administrative remedy. In either case there can be no litigation before

the agency has acted.”). For the reasons discussed above, those attempts are without

merit, and the district court’s judgment should accordingly be affirmed.

II. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO OBTAIN

RELIEF FROM CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OR

PROSECUTION THROUGH A CIVIL LAWSUIT.

Even if plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Federal Election Campaign Act had

merit, traditional equitable principles preclude the relief they seek. Geoffrey Fieger

is currently standing trial for violations of the federal campaign finance laws, see

supra page 10, and his fellow plaintiffs allege that they have been the subjects of a

similar grand jury investigation. Plaintiffs’ requested relief--that the court declare

such actions “unlawful”--would effectively enjoin Fieger’s criminal trial, as well as

any future criminal investigation of plaintiffs. That result finds no support in law.

Parties may not seek equitable relief to halt a grand jury investigation, let alone a

pending prosecution, through civil litigation.
- 28 -

“The traditional rule, dating back to the English division between courts of law

and equity, was that the latter had ‘no jurisdiction over the prosecution, the

punishment or the pardon of crimes or misdemeanors’ and therefore could not enjoin

criminal proceedings.” Deaver v. Seymour, 822 F.2d 66, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1987)

(quoting In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200, 210 (1888)). This prohibition on interference

with criminal proceedings derives from the basic doctrine that courts of equity will

not act when a party possesses an adequate remedy at law. Because “the adversary

system ‘afford[s] defendants, after indictment, a federal forumin which to assert their

defenses,’” individuals cannot challenge a federal criminal investigation or

prosecution through a suit in equity. Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. United States, 442 F.3d

177, 185 (3d Cir.) (quoting Deaver, 822 F.2d at 69), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 494

(2006).

“Courts exercise this restraint because, as Justice Frankfurter explained,

‘[b]earing the discomfiture and cost of a prosecution for crime even by an innocent

person is one of the painful obligations of citizenship.’” In re Sealed Case, 829 F.2d

50, 62 n.60 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (quoting Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 325

(1940)). The same is true of grand jury investigations. United States v. Dionisio, 410

U.S. 1, 10 (1973) (quoting Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 281 (1919)).

Individuals may decline to testify before the grand jury pursuant to certain

constitutional safeguards, but “witnesses are not entitled to take exception to the
 The obligation to cooperate in a grand jury investigation “is no different for a 3

person who may himself be the subject of the grand jury inquiry.” Dionisio, 410 U.S.

at 10 n.8.

- 29 -

jurisdiction of the grand jury or the court over the particular subject-matter that is

under investigation.” Blair, 250 U.S. at 282; see United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S.

338, 345 (1974).3

These equitable limits are further reinforced by the Executive’s “exclusive

authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case.” Nixon, 418

U.S. at 693. “It follows, as an incident of the constitutional separation of powers, that

the courts are not to interfere with the free exercise of the discretionary powers of the

attorneys of the United States in their control over criminal prosecutions.” United

States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 171 & n.8 (5th Cir. 1965) (en banc) (citing cases). See

also Stolt-Nielsen, 442 F.3d at 187.

The impropriety of allowing a collateral civil challenge to criminal proceedings

is further underscored by the contrast between the broad rules of civil discovery and

grand jury secrecy. The practical implications of that difference are manifest in this

case. Plaintiffs sought civil discovery into a variety of criminal documents including

subpoenas, search warrants, and similar items regarding a broad range of individuals.

(R.12 Plaintiffs’ Motion To Conduct Limited Discovery, pg. 2, Apx. pg. ___.)

Allowing potential defendants access to such documents, simply by dint of having
 Limited exceptions may apply for plaintiffs seeking to resist a subpoena or assert

4

particular First Amendment rights. United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530, 532 (1971);

Deaver, 822 F.2d at 69, 70 n.8. Plaintiffs’ suit falls into neither category.

 Pursuant to court order, Fieger’s motion to dismiss his indictment under Rule 5

12(b)(3) was due on or before October 9, 2007. Dkt. #50, United States v. Fieger,

Crim. No. 07-20414 (E.D. Mich.). Fieger’s motion did not challenge the indictment

(continued...)

- 30 -

filed a collateral suit challenging an investigation or prosecution, would have the

potential to greatly disrupt the grand jury as well as any subsequent criminal trial.

The “general rule barring judicial interference with the conduct of a grand jury

proceeding” is at its strongest in such cases: “courts do not, except in very limited

circumstances not alleged here, entertain the claim of a person subject to a criminal

investigation that the investigation is unlawful and must therefore be enjoined.” In

re Sealed Case, 829 F.2d at 62 n.60.4

“[S]ubjects of federal investigation have never gained injunctive relief against

federal prosecutors.” Deaver, 822 F.2d at 69-70. Principles of equity preclude such

extraordinary relief in this case as well. If plaintiffs wish to challenge the propriety

of the Attorney General’s actions, they may follow the approach taken by the

appellees in International Union and file a motion to dismiss any indictments that may

be returned against them. See 638 F.2d at 1162; Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3). Fieger

had this opportunity, and elected not to challenge his indictment on the basis of the

Federal Election Campaign Act. “Prospective defendants cannot, by bringing 5
 (...continued) 5

on the basis of 2 U.S.C. § 437g, and is currently pending before the district court.

Dkt. #21, United States v. Fieger, Crim. No. 07-20414 (E.D. Mich.).

- 31 -

ancillary equitable proceedings, circumvent federal criminal procedure.” Deaver, 822

F.2d at 71. Plaintiffs’suit seeks precisely that result, and the district court’s dismissal

should be affirmed on this ground as well. See Clemens Trust, 485 F.3d at 845

(affirmance permitted on any supported ground); Hutcherson, 326 F.3d at 756 (same).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ

 Acting Assistant Attorney General

ALAN GERSHEL

 Acting United States Attorney

MICHAEL S. RAAB

 (202) 514-4053

 ERIC FLEISIG-GREENE

 (202) 514-4815

 Attorneys, Appellate Staff

 Civil Division, Room 7214

 U.S. Department of Justice

 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

 Washington, DC 20530-0001

JANUARY 2008
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Rule 32(a)(7)(C) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, I

hereby certify that this brief complies with the type-volume limitation in Rule

32(a)(7)(B). The foregoing brief contains 7119 words from its Statement of

Jurisdiction to its Conclusion, and is presented in proportionally spaced 14-point

Times New Roman typeface. The brief was prepared using WordPerfect 12 for

Windows XP.

 

Eric Fleisig-Greene
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 31, 2008,I filed and served the foregoing Proof

Brief by causing an original to be sent to the Court by Federal Express overnight, and

one copy to be sent by Federal Express to:

Michael R. Dezsi

Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Johnson

19390 W. Ten Mile Rd.

Southfield, MI 48075

248-355-5555

Greg J. Mueller

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20463

202-694-1650

 

Eric Fleisig-Greene
DESIGNATION OF JOINT APPENDIX CONTENTS

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rules 28(d) and 30(b), the United States Attorney

General hereby designates the following portions of the district court record for

inclusion in the Joint Appendix, in addition to those contents that appear in plaintiffsappellants’ designation:

Description of Entry Date Record Entry No.

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Conduct 3/28/07 12

Limited Discovery