U.S. Code » Title 2 » Chapter CHAPTER 14— FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS

2 U.S.C. § 437h

Transferred

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 2 CasesGoogle Scholar

[transferred]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 85 cases, 1975–2015 · leading case: Davis v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 554 U.S. 724 (2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Davis v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 554 U.S. 724 (2008). · cites it 4× “113 , *2768 note following 2 U.S.C. § 437h. While Davis requested that the case be decided before the general election campaign began on September 12, 2006, the FEC opposed the request, asserting the need for extensive discovery, and the request was denied.”
McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003). · cites it 9× “" BCRA § 403; 2 U.S.C. § 437h note. This grant does not extend to the consideration of FEC regulations, and it does not permit the Court to go beyond its Article III powers to address claims that are nonjusticiable.”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007). · cites it 4× “See note following 2 U.S.C. § 437h (2000 ed., Supp. IV); 28 U.”
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). · cites it 3× “§§ 1331 , 2201, and 2202, and § 315 (a) of the Act, 2 U. S. C. § 437h (a) (1970 ed., Supp. IV).”
California Med. Ass'n v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 453 U.S. 182 (1981). · cites it 6× “On May 17, 1979, pursuant to the special expedited review provisions of the Act set forth in 2 U. S. C. § 437h (1976 ed. and Supp. III), [4] the District Court certified the constitutional questions raised in appellants' declaratory judgment action to the Court of Appeals for…”
Libertarian Nat'l Comm., Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 930 F. Supp. 2d 154 (D.D.C. 2013). · cites it 13× “As part of this challenge, the LNC asks this Court to enjoin the FEC from enforcing the FECA with respect to bequests, and also requests this Court, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437h, to certify one question to the en banc United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.”
Wendy Wagner v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 717 F.3d 1007 (D.C. Cir. 2013). · cites it 8× “Concluding that FECA’s judicial review provision, 2 U.S.C. § 437h, ousts both the district court and this panel of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the claims, we sua sponte vacate and remand to the district court to comply immediately with the procedures set forth in…”
Repub. Nat'l Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 487 F. Supp. 280 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). · cites it 9× “) had been denied without prejudice pending the convening of a three-judge court and certification of related issues regarding the constitutionality of FECA by it to the Court of Appeals pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437h. See Republican National Committee v.”
Buckley v. Valeo, 519 F.2d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1975). · cites it 9× “District Judge Howard Corcoran, acting pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437h 7 (a special judicial review provision in FECA) transmitted the entire case to this court.”
Ramsey Clark v. Francis R. Valeo, Sec'y of the United States Senate, 559 F.2d 642 (D.C. Cir. 1977). · cites it 7× “2 U.S.C. § 437h establishes an unusual judicial review provision.”
Rufer v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 64 F. Supp. 3d 195 (D.D.C. 2014). · cites it 9× “See 2 U.S.C. § 437h. To proceed along either of these special jurisdictional avenues, Plaintiffs must raise substantial, non-frivolous constitutional claims that are not clearly foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.”
Anh Cao v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 619 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 2010). · cites it 5× “The district court, abiding by its proper role in addressing a 2 U.S.C. § 437h challenge,4 identified the constitutional issues in the complaint, held 1 As amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“BCRA”) of 2002, Pub.”
Show all 85 citing cases →
— 2 U.S.C. § 437h(a) — 27 cases
Repub. Nat'l Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 487 F. Supp. 280 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). “) had been denied without prejudice pending the convening of a three-judge court and certification of related issues regarding the constitutionality of FECA by it to the Court of Appeals pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437h. See Republican National Committee v.”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Nat'l Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 (1985).
Bread Political Action Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 455 U.S. 577 (1982).
Fed. Election Comm'n v. NRA Political Victory Fund, 513 U.S. 88 (1994).
Buckley v. Valeo, 519 F.2d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “District Judge Howard Corcoran, acting pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437h 7 (a special judicial review provision in FECA) transmitted the entire case to this court.”
— 2 U.S.C. § 437h(a)(4) — 1 case
McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 919 (D.D.C. 2003).
— 2 U.S.C. § 437h(b) — 1 case
Wendy Wagner v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 717 F.3d 1007 (D.C. Cir. 2013). “Concluding that FECA’s judicial review provision, 2 U.S.C. § 437h, ousts both the district court and this panel of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the claims, we sua sponte vacate and remand to the district court to comply immediately with the procedures set forth in…”
— 2 U.S.C. § 437h(c) — 2 cases
Wendy Wagner v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 717 F.3d 1007 (D.C. Cir. 2013). “Concluding that FECA’s judicial review provision, 2 U.S.C. § 437h, ousts both the district court and this panel of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the claims, we sua sponte vacate and remand to the district court to comply immediately with the procedures set forth in…”
Athens Lumber Co. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 689 F.2d 1006 (11th Cir. 1982).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.