Court Opinion

ID: 2964367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:39.415684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:53.880087
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

          No. 96-1532

                     MAINE RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, INC., ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs - Appellees,

                                          v.

                         FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISION, ET AL.,

                                Defendant - Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                           Cyr and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                _____________________

               David Kolker, Attorney, with whom Lawrence M. Noble, General
               ____________                      _________________
          Counsel, and Richard B. Bader, Associate General Counsel, were on
                       ________________
          brief for appellant Federal Election Commission.
               Dennis  M.  Flannery,  Ankur   J.  Goel,  Wilmer,  Cutler  &
               ____________________   ________________   __________________
          Pickering and Donald J.  Simon on brief for Common  Cause, amicus
          _________     ________________
          curiae.
               James  Bopp, Jr., with whom Paul R. Scholle, Bopp, Coleson &
               ________________            _______________  _______________
          Bostrom,  Daniel  M. Snow  and Pierce  Atwood  were on  brief for
          _______   _______________      ______________
          appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                   October 18, 1996
                                 ____________________

                    Per  Curiam.  Defendant-appellant, the Federal Election
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________

          Commission ("FEC"),  appeals the  decision of the  district court

          that  "11 C.F.R.   100.22(b) is contrary to the [Federal Election

          Campaign  Act (FECA), 2 U.S.C.     431-55,] as  the Supreme Court

          and  the First Circuit Court  of Appeals have  interpreted it and

          thus  beyond  the  power  of  the  FEC."    Maine Right  to  Life
                                                      _____________________

          Committee, Inc. v. Federal  Election Commission, 914 F.  Supp. 8,
          _______________    ____________________________

          13 (D. Me. 1996).   Appellant argues that the  "express advocacy"

          regulation  promulgated in    100.22(b)  is facially  reasonable,

          advances compelling governmental  interests, and  is entitled  to

          deference.

                    After a  careful evaluation of the  parties' briefs and

          the record on appeal, we affirm for substantially the reasons set

          forth  in the district  court opinion.   See Maine  Right to Life
                                                   ___ ____________________

          Committee, 914 F. Supp.  8; see also Federal Election  Commission
          _________                   ________ ____________________________

          v.  Christian Action Network, 894  F. Supp. 946  (W.D. Va. 1995),
              ________________________

          aff'd  per curiam, 92 F.3d  1178 (table), No.  95-2600, (4th Cir.
          _________________

          Aug.  2, 1996)  (unpublished  disposition) (granting  defendants'

          motion to  dismiss on the grounds that  the complained-of actions

          did  not  constitute  violations  of FECA,  and  the  FEC  lacked

          jurisdiction to bring suit).

                    Costs to appellee.

                    Affirmed.
                    ________

                                         -2-
                                         -2-