Court Opinion

ID: 9480365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:45:39.446164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:38.228501
License: Public Domain

TANG, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I agree in the main with the opinion’s analysis. I write separately, however, to highlight the needlessly burdensome consequences of 2 U.S.C. § 437h mandating initial en banc hearing of constitutional challenges to FECA. In order to avoid those needlessly burdensome consequences, we split too fine a hair in this case. On the one hand, the court holds Goland’s constitutional challenge is too “frivolous” for en banc rehearing under § 437h, but on the other, it is not “frivolous” enough to warrant sanctions. This subtle distinction permits us to decide Goland’s constitutional challenge on the merits without conceding that the challenge indeed presents some, albeit unavailing, meritorious arguments.
If Goland’s constitutional challenge raises any meritorious arguments, then, as Congress has required under § 437h, we should reverse dismissal and certify the challenge to the en banc court. We avoid that needlessly wasteful process in Go-land’s case, but not without some cost. In this decision the court has added another step to FECA jurisdictional analysis with its subtle distinctions in what is frivolous. It is a step unfortunately prone to result-oriented decision making.