Opinion ID: 6221816
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Registration Requirement Claim

Text: Finally, and as discussed previously, the registration requirement requires a political committee to file with the Secretary “[a] statement of organization” identifying the name, address, and purpose of the committee; “any sponsoring organization”; the names and addresses of the political committee’s officers; and any bank account the committee uses “to receive or make contributions or make expenditures.” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 1-19-26.1(C). Under this provision, Cowboys for Trump could establish standing by alleging a credible threat of enforcement (which happened after the complaint was filed) that a political committee alone triggers the obligation to register with the Secretary, see id. § 1-19-26.1(C), and a political committee’s failure to register exposes violators to civil and criminal penalties, id. §§ 1-19-34.6, -36. 11 Plaintiffs also asked for a broader declaration that the FECA preempts the CRA to the extent the CRA “requires associations of people to register with or disclose receipts and expenditures to the New Mexico Secretary of State.” Aplt. App. at 18 ¶ 57. In their opening brief, however, they discuss only preemption as to § 1-19-26.1(E). They have therefore waived appellate review of their broader preemption claim. See Becker v. Kroll, 494 F.3d 904, 913 n.6 (10th Cir. 2007). 15 Appellate Case: 21-2015 Document: 010110645360 Date Filed: 02/15/2022 Page: 16 Even so, we will not disturb the district court’s ruling because Plaintiffs failed to include allegations in their complaint related to registration and forfeited these arguments without arguing plain error. 12 First, Plaintiffs failed to properly challenge the district court’s error in their opening brief. See Becker v. Kroll, 494 F.3d 904, 913 n.6 (10th Cir. 2007). There are some exceptions to our general rule to not entertain arguments made for the first time in a reply brief. Headrick v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 24 F.3d 1272, 1278 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing Herbert v. Nat’l Acad. of Scis., 974 F.2d 192 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). But although this court has made exceptions and heard jurisdictional arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief to remove uncertainty over jurisdictional requirements, Murphy v. Derwinski, 990 F.2d 540, 543 n. 8 (10th Cir. 1993), we will not make an exception here. The exceptions made in considering jurisdictional arguments not raised in the opening brief are usually for defendants challenging standing because, “as courts of limited jurisdiction, we are affirmatively obliged to consider whether the constitutional and statutory authority exist[s] for us to hear each dispute put to us—and we must decline to proceed if they are not.” Herbert, 974 F.2d at 196. But “the converse of that rule does not hold[.]” Id. 12 Had Plaintiffs included the allegations made for the first time in their reply brief in their complaint or made similar arguments in their opening brief, the challenge to the registration requirement may have been preserved. But they did not do so. 16 Appellate Case: 21-2015 Document: 010110645360 Date Filed: 02/15/2022 Page: 17 Second, after failing to properly challenge the district court’s reasoning in its opening brief, Plaintiffs failed to argue plain error in their reply brief. “[W]e will entertain forfeited theories on appeal, but we will reverse a district court’s judgment on the basis of a forfeited theory only if failing to do so would entrench a plainly erroneous result.” Richison v. Ernest Group, Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1128 (10th Cir. 2011). But the “appellant carries the heavy burden of satisfying plain error,” and “if an appellant fails to satisfy that burden, we do not develop a plain error argument for the appellant.” United States v. MacKay, 715 F.3d 807, 831 n.17 (10th Cir. 2013). Third, Plaintiffs failed to allege in their complaint that the Secretary ordered Cowboys for Trump to pay $7,800 in fines for failing to comply with the CRA’s registration requirements. It was not until their reply brief before this court that Plaintiffs provided evidence of the fine the Secretary imposed on Cowboys for Trump, even though the fine was imposed before Plaintiffs filed their complaint. Aplt. Rep. Br. at 8. Because our review here is confined to the complaint, we will not consider these fines in our disposition. See Summum, 130 F.3d at 913 n.9. And as noted before, Plaintiffs were given an opportunity to amend their complaint before filing this appeal, at which point they could have included these allegations. And as far as we can tell, Plaintiffs have no judicially created obstacles in attempting to cure the jurisdictional defects in their complaint through an amended complaint. 17 Appellate Case: 21-2015 Document: 010110645360 Date Filed: 02/15/2022 Page: 18 Consequently, we decline to reverse the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim against enforcement of the registration requirement.