Judge tosses Democrats' challenge to Trump order's effect on FEC
A federal judge late Tuesday threw out national Democrats' challenge to an executive order issued by President Trump they claimed stepped on the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) independence.
U.S. District Judge Amir Ali said the Democratic Party's three national political committees failed to provide clear enough proof that the FEC's independence is at risk.
The FEC's legal counsel represented to the court that it would not take directives from the White House interfering with its independent judgment, and the government said no such directives had been issued, prompting the judge to dismiss the lawsuit.
'On this record — lacking any specific allegations that the challenged section has been or will be applied to the FEC or its Commissioners, in accord with the representations of counsel — the Court grants the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of a concrete and imminent injury sufficient to establish standing and ripeness,' Ali, an appointee of former President Biden, wrote in a 14-page opinion.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sued the Trump administration in February, contending that the president's order aimed at expanding the White House's control over various independent regulatory agencies would preclude the agencies from taking legal positions out of line with the president's views.
The suit zeroed in on the FEC, the independent agency that enforces campaign finance laws and oversees elections, raising concern that the order would eliminate the Federal Election Campaign Act's (FECA) requirement that the executive's legal interpretations reflect the consensus of the expert and bipartisan board.
The FEC is led by six commissioners appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The commission's official interpretation of the law must be backed by at least four commissioners, and no more than three of them may be affiliated with the same political party.
In their complaint, the Democrats argued Trump's executive order threatened to undercut the consensus reached after the Watergate scandal that federal campaign finance rules must be neutrally enforced, instead leaving judgment to a 'single partisan political figure — the President of the United States.'
However, Ali wrote in his decision that the Democrats needed to provide strong evidence that the FEC is specifically targeted by Trump's order, which does not single it out and applies to all executive employees. They also could have alleged 'concrete steps' the administration had taken to sway the FEC and its commissioners.
'They have not done so here,' the judge wrote.
Ali dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the claims could be brought again in the future. The Hill requested comment from the three committees.
'This Court's doors are open to the parties if changed circumstances show concrete action or impact on the FEC's or its Commissioners' independence,' Ali wrote in his opinion. 'Absent such allegations, however, the Court must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and therefore does so.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
17 minutes ago
- CNN
Venezuelans in Florida react to Trump's new travel ban
President Donald Trump signed a proclamation to ban travel from several countries to the US, citing security risks, with one of the countries being Venezuela. Venezuelans in Florida reacted to the ban, with one worrying about their visa.
18 minutes ago
Detained Columbia graduate claims ‘irreparable harm' to career and family as he pleads for release
NEW YORK -- A Columbia graduate facing deportation over his pro-Palestinian activism on campus has outlined the 'irreparable harm' caused by his continued detention as a federal judge weighs his release. Mahmoud Khalil said in court filings unsealed Thursday that the 'most immediate and visceral harms' he's faced in his months detained in Louisiana relate to missing out on the birth of his first child in April. 'Instead of holding my wife's hand in the delivery room, I was crouched on a detention center floor, whispering through a crackling phone line as she labored alone,' the 30-year-old legal U.S. resident wrote. 'When I heard my son's first cries, I buried my face in my arms so no one would see me weep.' He also cited potentially 'career-ending' harms from the ordeal, noting that Oxfam International has already rescinded a job offer to serve as a policy advisor. Even his mother's visa to come to the U.S. to help care for his infant son is also now under federal review, Khalil said. 'As someone who fled prosecution in Syria for my political beliefs, for who I am, I never imagined myself to be in immigration detention, here in the United States,' he wrote. 'Why should protesting this Israel government's indiscriminate killing of thousands of innocent Palestinians result in the erosion of my constitutional rights?' Spokespersons for the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment. Khalil's 13-page statement was among a number of legal declarations his lawyers filed highlighting the wide-ranging negative impacts of his arrest. Dr. Noor Abdalla, his U.S. citizen wife, described the challenges of not having her husband to help navigate their son's birth and the first weeks of his young life. Students and professors at Columbia wrote about the chilling effect Khalil's arrest has had on campus life, with people afraid to attend protests or participate in groups that can be viewed as critical of the Trump administration. Last week, a federal judge in New Jersey said the Trump administration's effort to deport Khalil likely violates the Constitution. Judge Michael Farbiarz wrote the government's primary justification for removing Khalil — that his beliefs may pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy — could open the door to vague and arbitrary enforcement. Khalil was detained by federal immigration agents on March 8 in the lobby of his university-owned apartment, the first arrest under Trump's widening crackdown on students who joined campus protests against .
18 minutes ago
Peruvian migrant acquitted in the first trial over the new militarized zone at US-Mexico border
EL PASO, Texas -- A Peruvian woman who crossed the U.S. border illegally was acquitted Thursday of unauthorized access to a newly designated militarized zone in the first trial under the Trump administration's efforts to prosecute immigrants who cross in certain parts of New Mexico and western Texas. Adely Vanessa De La Cruz-Alvarez, 21, was arrested last month near the West Texas town of Tornillo after she entered the U.S. from Mexico by walking across the riverbed of the Rio Grande, court documents show. In addition to being charged with entering the country illegally, she was charged with accessing a military zone. She is among several other immigrants who have been charged under the law since President Donald Trump's administration transferred oversight of a strip of land along the border to the military. It is as part of a new approach the Department of Justice is taking to crack down on illegal immigration. The Associated Press left messages Thursday with De La Cruz-Alvarez's attorney, Veronica Teresa Lerma. The lawyer told The Texas Tribune the acquittal is significant. 'Hopefully, this sets the tone for the federal government,' Lerma said, 'so they know what the El Paso community will do with these charges.' Even before the woman's case went to trial, federal magistrate judges in neighboring New Mexico had dismissed similar cases, finding little evidence that immigrants knew about the zones. Lerma was convicted of entering the country illegally and was already facing deportation, but could have faced up to 18 months in prison for entering the militarized zone. Despite the verdict, U.S. Attorney Justin Simmons of the Western District of Texas said his office will continue to aggressively prosecute National Defense Area violations. 'At the end of the day, another illegal alien has been found guilty of illegally entering the country in violation of the improper entry statute and will be removed from the United States,' Simmons said in a statement. "That's a win for America." The administration wants to sharply increase the removal of immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally as Trump seeks to make good on his pledge of mass deportations. The administration has deployed thousands of troops to the border, while arrests have plunged to the lowest levels since the mid-1960s.
