Kean for Congress v. FEC

In separate rulings issued on January 13 and January 20, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Commission to pay attorney’s fees totaling over $31,000 to the Kean for Congress Committee. The fees stem from the Committee’s lawsuit challenging the Commission’s dismissal of an administrative complaint it had filed — a decision the Commission ultimately reversed on remand from the district court. For additional information, see the December 2001 Record, page 3 and the March 2004 Record, page 7.

Background

In 2000, Kean for Congress Committee brought an administrative complaint to the FEC regarding the Council for Responsible Government’s funding of campaign mailings in an attempt to influence the New Jersey Congressional Seventh District Republican primary. The Commission subsequently voted 3-3 on whether to find “reason to believe” that the Act had been violated and then unanimously voted to dismiss the complaint and close the file. The committee asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to find that the Commission acted contrary to law when it dismissed the committee’s administrative complaint.

At the FEC’s request and over the committee’s opposition, the court remanded the case to the FEC for 60 days so it could reconsider the committee’s administrative complaint in light of McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), which the Supreme Court had issued after the FEC had dismissed the committee’s administrative complaint but before the Commissioners had issued their Statements of Reasons for that dismissal. The court’s order did not direct the FEC to take any particular position on remand or compel the agency to reverse its dismissal. On remand, the FEC found “reason to believe” and subsequently entered into a conciliation agreement with the Council for Responsible Government.

Analysis

On May 31, 2005 Kean for Congress filed a motion for attorney’s fees and expenses, arguing that under the Equal Access to Justice Act it was a “prevailing party.” In order to be a prevailing party, the party must prove that:

• There has been a court-ordered change in the legal relationship between the parties;
• Judgment was entered in the party’s favor; and
• The judicial pronouncement confers some judicial relief.

The court found that the remand order was a court-ordered change in the legal relationship, by forcing the FEC to reconsider the administrative complaint within 60 days. Additionally, it was favorable to the committee, even though it originally had opposed the remand, and offered relief in the form of time constraints, which addressed the grievances of the committee.

After concluding that the committee was a prevailing party, the court considered whether the FEC’s position was “substantially justified.” The court found that the FEC’s position was not substantially justified because, among other reasons, the three Commissioners who initially voted against pursuing the administrative complaint did not address the McConnell decision in their Statement of Reasons. The court found the committee’s request for attorney’s fees to be reasonable and ordered the FEC to pay over $31,000. For more information on this case, see December 2001 Record, page 3 and March 2004 Record, page 7.