Court Opinion

ID: 9785456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:46:54.122495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:24.990918
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Presently before the Court are a number of motions to stay all or part of this Court’s May 1, 2003, Final Judgment. On May 7, 2003, the NRA Plaintiffs moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c), to stay this Court’s decision with respect to Title II pending review by the Supreme Court. NRA Mem. at 1. On May 8, 2003, this Court issued an Order requiring that any other motions requesting to stay all or part of this Court’s May 1, 2003, Final Judgment Order bé filed by noon on Friday, May 9, 2003. McConnell v. FEC, No. 02cv582 (D.D.C. May 8, 2003) (briefing order). The Court also required that any and all oppositions to the motions for stay be filed by noon on Monday, May 12, 2003, and that any and all replies to the motions for stay be filed by noon on Wednesday, May 14, 2003. Id.
*20In accordance with that schedule, on May 9, 2003, Plaintiff ACLU filed a stay motion joining Plaintiff NRA’s request to stay this Court’s decision with respect to Title II. ACLU Mot. at 3. The NRA and ACLU stay motions have been opposed by the Madison Center Plaintiffs,1 who along with the AFL-CIO Plaintiffs have each moved for injunctive relief requesting that the Court not restore any definition of “electioneering communication.” Madison Center Mem. at 1; AFL-CIO Mem at 2. The Madison Center Plaintiffs and the AFL-CIO Plaintiffs’ motions have been opposed by the Government Defendants2 and Intervenor Defendants.3
The Government Defendants and Inter-venor-Defendants also move pursuant to Rule 62(c) to stay the Court’s entire Final Judgment pending disposition of the parties’ appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States. Gov’t Mem. at 4; Intervenor Defs.’ Mem. at 1. These motions are opposed by certain of the McConnell Plaintiffs,4 who argue that the Court’s Final Judgment with respect to Sections 201(5), 213, 318, and 504 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“BCRA”), the positions unanimously struck down by the three judge court, should not be stayed. McConnell Opp’n at 3. These McConnell Plaintiffs also contend that the Court’s ruling with regard to Title I should not be stayed. Id. at 3-4. These McConnell Plaintiffs join the NRA and ACLU in requesting, however, that the Court’s Title II ruling be stayed. Id. at 4-6. Defendants’ motions are also opposed by Plaintiff National Association of Broadcasters which requests that the Court not stay its ruling with regard to Section 504 of BCRA. NAB Mem. at 5. Plaintiff National Association of Broadcasters takes no position with respect to any of the other stay requests. Id. at 1. Similarly, Plaintiffs in Civil Action Number 02-633, the Echols Plaintiffs, oppose Defendants’ motions, particularly with respect to staying the Court’s ruling on Section 318 of BCRA. Echols’ Opp’n at 2. Additional oppositions to the Government Defendants and Inter-venor Defendants’ motions have been filed by Republican National Committee Plaintiffs 5 and Plaintiffs California Democratic Party and California Republican Party,6 opposing the stay motions only with re*21spect to staying this Court’s ruling on Title I of BCRA. CDP/CRP Opp’n at 2; RNC Opp’n at 1. The Madison Center Plaintiffs and the AFL-CIO also each oppose these motions and argue, as discussed supra, that the Court should not reinstate either definition of electioneering communication.
Two motions for “administrative” stays filed by the NRA Plaintiffs and the Government Defendants (joined by the Inter-venor Defendants) are also pending before this Court. These requests are to stay all (Defendants’ position) or part (NRA’s position) of the Court’s ruling until the Court can make a ruling on the present Rule 62(c) motions. Given that the Court is ruling on the Rule 62(c) motions in the attached order, the administrative stay requests are denied as moot.
After due consideration of the motions, the oppositions, and replies, the relevant case law, and the pertinent Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court is satisfied that a stay should be granted pending final disposition of these eleven actions in the Supreme Court of the United States. This Court’s desire to prevent the litigants from facing potentially three different regulatory regimes in a very short time span, and the Court’s recognition of the divisions among the panel about the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of BCRA, counsel in favor of granting a stay of this case. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) (“Findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under Rule 12 or 56 or any other motion.... ”), the Court deems no further discussion necessary to resolve these motions.

. Madison Center Plaintiffs include the National Right to Life Committee, Inc., National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund, National Right to Life PAC, Libertarian National Committee, Inc., Club for Growth, Inc., Indiana Family Institute, Inc., U.S. Representative Mike Pence, Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor, Barret Austin O’Brock, and Trevor M. Southerland.

. The Government Defendants include the Federal Election Commission, the United States of America, the United States Department of Justice, John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, and the Federal Communications Commission.

. The Intervenor Defendants include Senator John McCain, Senator Russell Feingold, Representative Christopher Shays, Representative Martin Meehan, Senator Olympia Snowe, and Senator James Jeffords.

. These McConnell Plaintiffs include Senator Mitch McConnell, Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc., Representative Bob Barr, Center for Individual Freedom, National Right to Work Committee, 60 Plus Association, Inc., U.S. d/b/a Pro English, and Thomas Mclner-ney.

. The Republican National Committee Plaintiffs include the Republican National Committee, the Republican Parties of Colorado, New Mexico, and Ohio, Dallas County (Iowa) Republican County Central Committee, and Michael Duncan.

. Joining the CDP and CRP in opposing these motions are Yolo County Democratic Central Committee, Art Torres, Santa Cruz Republican Central Committee, Shawn Steel, Timothy Morgan, Barbara Alby, and Douglas R. Boyd, Sr.