Maine Right To Life v. Federal Election

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: October 18, 1996
• Docket: 96-1532
• Status: Published

Opinion

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-