CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 7/18/2023 1

Nullifying Campaign Limits 

Shortly Before an Election 

New York Progress and Protection PAC v. Walsh 

(Paul A. Crotty, S.D.N.Y. 1:13-cv-6769) 

On September 25, 2013, a political action committee filed a federal 

complaint challenging campaign contribution limits. On October 

17, the district judge denied a preliminary injunction against decades-old limits challenged in an emergency case that could have 

been brought earlier. On October 24, the court of appeals ordered 

the district judge to issue a preliminary injunction. Six months later, the district judge awarded the political action committee summary judgment, and the parties later agreed to an attorney-fee 

award of $360,000. 

Subject: Campaign activities. Topics: Campaign finance; 

interlocutory appeal; laches; attorney fees. 

A political action committee filed a federal complaint in the Southern District of New York on September 25, 2013, challenging campaign finance regulations in light of the committee’s desire to advocate for the election of a 

conservative candidate in the November 5 election for mayor of New York.1

On the following day, the committee filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.2

 The committee also submitted a letter supporting urgency with a 

report that the prohibition on donations exceeding $150,000 was in conflict 

with a pending contribution of $200,000 and a desire to influence the mayoral election.3

 The state replied that the urgency resulted from the plaintiff’s 

delay in bringing the action.4

Judge Paul A. Crotty heard the case on October 8.5 On October 16, the 

committee filed a mandamus petition with the court of appeals seeking an 

order that Judge Crotty rule.6 Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs granted the committee’s motion for expedited consideration,7

 but Judge Crotty ruled on Oc1. Complaint, N.Y. Progress & Protection PAC v. Walsh, No. 1:13-cv-6769 (S.D.N.Y. 

Sept. 25, 2013), D.E. 1; N.Y. Progress & Protection PAC v. Walsh, 733 F.3d 483, 485 (2d Cir. 

2013); see Rich Calder & Carl Campanile, Lhota PACs Punch: Big-$$ Donors Suing in Bid to 

Open Floodgates, N.Y. Post, Sept. 26, 2013, at 10. 

2. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, N.Y. Progress & Protection PAC, No. 1:13-cv-6769 

(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2013), D.E. 3; N.Y. Progress & Protection PAC, 733 F.3d at 485. 

3. Plaintiff’s Letter, N.Y. Progress & Protection PAC, No. 1:13-cv-6769 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 

2013), D.E. 7. 

4. State’s Letter, id. (Sept. 26, 2013), D.E. 8. 

5. Transcript, id. (Oct. 8, 2013, filed Nov. 19, 2013), D.E. 38; Docket Sheet, id. (Sept. 25, 

2013) (D.E. 12). 

6. Mandamus Petition, In re N.Y. Progress & Protection PAC, No. 13-3868 (2d Cir. Oct. 

16, 2013), D.E. 1; N.Y. Progress & Protection PAC, 733 F.3d at 485. 

7. Order, In re N.Y. Progress & Protection PAC, No. 13-3868 (2d Cir. Oct. 16, 2013), D.E. 

13. 
Nullifying Campaign Limits Shortly Before an Election 

2 Federal Judicial Center 7/18/2023 

tober 17.8 Judge Crotty denied the plaintiff a preliminary injunction, noting 

the plaintiff’s (1) asking the court to rush to dismantle a law, (2) asking the 

court to disrupt the status quo just days before an election, and (3) creating 

artificial urgency by challenging a law decades on the books so close to an 

election.9

The court of appeals agreed to hear an appeal of the injunction denial on 

October 18, the day originally scheduled for a hearing on the mandamus petition.10 On October 24, the court of appeals ordered Judge Crotty to issue a 

preliminary injunction against the contribution cap.11 “Although we express 

no opinion on the ultimate outcome, the plaintiff here has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.”12 The delay in bringing the action was forgivable because it was filed only fifteen days after the Republican primary 

election produced the candidate that the committee wished to support.13

On April 24, 2014, Judge Crotty granted summary judgment to the 

committee.14 On June 25, the parties agreed to an award of $360,000 in attorney fees.15

8. Opinion, N.Y. Progress & Protection PAC, No. 1:13-cv-6769 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2013), 

D.E. 31 [hereinafter October 17, 2013, Opinion], 2013 WL 5647168; Mandate, In re N.Y. 

Progress & Protection PAC, No. 13-3868 (2d Cir. Oct. 16, 2013), D.E. 33 (granting withdrawal of the mandamus petition); N.Y. Progress & Protection PAC, 733 F.3d at 485–86. 

9. October 17, 2013, Opinion, supra note 8, at 9, 12; see Rich Calder, A “Lhota” Cash Off 

the Table, N.Y. Post, Oct. 18, 2013, at 16; Thomas Kaplan, U.S. Judge Denies Bid by Lhota 

Supporters to Accept Unlimited Donations, N.Y. Times, Oct. 18, 2013, at A22. 

10. N.Y. Progress & Protection PAC, 733 F.3d at 486; Preliminary Injunction, N.Y. Progress & Protection PAC, No. 1:13-cv-6769 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2013), D.E. 34. 

11. N.Y. Progress & Protection PAC, 733 F.3d at 489; see Daniel Beekman & Annie Karni, 

Pol Pile of Cash: Ruling KOs Limits on PACs in a Windfall for Lhota, N.Y. Daily News, Oct. 

25, 2013, at 18; Thomas Kaplan, Court Lifts Limit on Contributing to Pro-Lhota PAC, N.Y. 

Times, Oct. 25, 2013, at A1. 

12. N.Y. Progress & Protection PAC, 733 F.3d at 487. 

13. Id. at 485. 

14. N.Y. Progress & Protection PAC v. Walsh, 17 F. Supp. 3d 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); see

Daniel Beekman, Court: Nix N.Y. Limit on Elex $, N.Y. Daily News, Apr. 25, 2014, at 10; Carl 

Campanile, Sad Judge Opens NY Pol $pigots, N.Y. Post, Apr. 25, 2014, at 4; Thomas Kaplan, 

Judge Rejects State Limit on Donations to “Super PACs,” N.Y. Times, Apr. 25, 2014, at A22. 

15. Stipulated Order, N.Y. Progress & Protection PAC, No. 1:13-cv-6769 (S.D.N.Y. June 

25, 2014), D.E. 79.