Maine Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 98 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Maine Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 98 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
51 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Koreasa Maria Williams v. United States of America (azd, 2026-02-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#1 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b) cited 1× in this case · 1 total citations of statute #8 2 U.S.C. § 431-55 cited 1× in this case · 33 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Koreasa Maria Williams v. United States of America
D. Ariz. · 2026 · confidence medium
The court may deny a hearing if the movant's allegations, 27 viewed against the record, fail to state a claim for relief or “are so palpably incredible or 28 patently frivolous as to warrant summary dismissal.” United States v. McMullen, 98 F.3d 1 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2×)
D.D.C. · 2003 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Va. Soc'y for Human Life, 263 F.3d at 385, 392 (striking down FEC regulation 11 C.F.R. § 100.22 (b) that defined express advocacy in such a manner so as to include communications that "could only be interpreted by a reasonable person as containing advocacy of the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidates"); Maine Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. FEC, 98 F.3d 1, 1 (1st Cir.1996) (summarily affirming district court decision to strike down same regulation); Right to Life of Dutchess Cty., Inc. v. FEC, 6 F.Supp.2d 248, 253 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (striking down same regulation…
cited Cited "see" Virginia Society for Human Life, Incorporated v. Federal Election Commission, Virginia Society for Human Life, Incorporated v. Federal Election Commission
4th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. 17 The next challenge to subpart (b) of the regulation came in Right to Life of Dutchess County, Inc. v. FEC, 6 F. Supp. 2d 248 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (RLDC).
discussed Cited "see" Federal Election Commission v. Christian Coalition
D.D.C. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See respectively MRLC, 98 F.3d at 1 ; Federal Election Comm’n v. Christian Action Network, 92 F.3d 1178 (4th Cir.1996) (unpublished), aff ’g, 894 F.Supp. 946 (W.D.Va.1995); Right to Life of Dutchess County v. Federal Election Comm’n, 6 F.Supp.2.d 248, 254 (S.D.N.Y.1998).
cited Cited "see" Federal Election Commission v. Christian Action Network, Inc.
4th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See 98 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.1996) (affirming per curiam “for substantially the reasons set forth” by the district court in 914 F.Supp. 8 (D.Maine 1996)) (“MRLC’).
cited Cited "see" Federal Election Com'n v. Christian Action Network, Inc.
4th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See 98 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.1996) (affirming per curiam "for substantially the reasons set forth" by the district court in 914 F.Supp. 8 (D.Maine 1996)) ("MRLC").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." McGugan v. Clarke
W.D. Va. · 2021 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Abernathy v. Anderson, 98 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2020) (noting that cuts, bruises, swelling, and some bleeding are not serious medical needs); Ward v. Sutton, No. 87- 7319, 1987 WL 39065, at *1 (4th Cir. Nov. 25, 1987) (per curiam) (holding that a badly bruised back is not a serious medical need); Sapp v. North Carolina Dep’t of Corrections, No. 3:12-cv-23- RJC, 2013 WL 2480667 , at *4 (W.D.N.C.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Becker v. Federal Election Commission
D. Mass. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Maine Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. FEC, 98 F.3d 1, 1 (1st Cir.1996) (affirming a district court’s invalidation of an FEC regulation defining “express advocacy” under the APA); Perot v. FEC, 97 F.3d 553 , 560-61 (D.C.Cir.1996) (instructing that an action seeking judicial review of an FEC regulation should be brought under the APA); Faucher v. FEC, 743 F.Supp. 64, 68-69 (D.Me.1990) (discussing the court’s basis for exercising jurisdiction in an APA case challenging an FEC regulation), aff'd 928 F.2d 468 (1st Cir.1991).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Right to Life of Michigan, Inc. v. Miller
W.D. Mich. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Maine Right to Life Committee, Inc. v. Federal Election Com’n, 914 F.Supp. 8, 12 (D.Me.) (“What the Supreme Court did was draw a bright line that may err on the side of permitting things that affect the election process, but at all costs avoids restricting, in any way, discussion of public issues.”), aff’d, 98 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 52 , 139 L.Ed.2d 17 (1997); Federal Election Com’n v. Christian Action Network, 894 F.Supp. 946, 953 (W.D.Va.1995) (“Without a frank admonition to take electoral action, even admittedly negative advertisem…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Daggett v. Devine
D. Me. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Maine Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 914 F.Supp. 8 (D.Me.1996), aff'd, 98 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.1996), petition for cert. filed, 65 U.S.L.W. 3783 (U.S. May 14, 1997) (No. 96-1818); Faucher v. Federal Election Comm'n, 743 F.Supp. 64 (D.Me.1990), aff 'd, 928 F.2d 468 (1st Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 820 , 112 S.Ct. 79 , 116 L.Ed.2d 52 (1991). 2 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MAINE RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, INC., Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Et Al., Defendant-Appellant
96-1532.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Oct 18, 1996.
98 F.3d 1
David Kolker, Attorney, with whom Lawrence M. Noble, General Counsel, and Richard B. Bader, Associate General Counsel, Washington, DC, were on brief, for defendant-appellant Federal Election Commission., Dennis M. Flannery, Ankur J. Goel, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering and Donald J. Simon, on brief, Washington, DC, 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, Terre Haute, IN, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Torruella, Cyr, Boudin.
Cited by 34 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant, the Federal Election 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.