52 U.S.C. § 30110
Judicial review
The Commission, the national committee of any political party, or any individual eligible to vote in any election for the office of President may institute such actions in the appropriate district court of the United States, including actions for declaratory judgment, as may be appropriate to construe the constitutionality of any provision of this Act. The district court immediately shall certify all questions of constitutionality of this Act to the United States court of appeals for the circuit involved, which shall hear the matter sitting en banc.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2014–2024 · leading case: BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. 230 (2021).
BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. 230 (2021). “§8514 (a)(2); 52 U. S. C. §30110 ; 28 U. S. C. §1254 (2); 50 U.”
Holmes v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 823 F.3d 69 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “52 U.S.C. § 30110 . If the requirements of Article III of the Constitution are satisfied, the district court must “immediately” “certify all questions of constitutionality of this Act to the United States court of appeals for the circuit involved .”
Indep. Inst. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 816 F.3d 113 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “Independence Institute therefore sued the FEC, arguing that BCRA’s disclosure requirement was unconstitutional as applied to this situation.”
Wendy Wagner v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 793 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “§ 437h, now codified at 52 U.S.C. § 30110 ). The panel therefore remanded the case to the district court to make appropriate findings of fact, and then to certify those facts and the relevant constitutional questions to this court sitting en banc.”
Brown v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 386 F. Supp. 3d 16 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “See 52 U.S.C. § 30110 & note. The Court therefore ordered the parties to address at the preliminary injunction hearing whether either procedure deprived this Court of jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' constitutional claims or their motion for a preliminary injunction.”
Libertarian Nat'l Comm., Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 228 F. Supp. 3d 19 (D.D.C. 2017). “Circuit en banc, pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30110 . 1 The defendant, the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), has.”
Holmes v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 875 F.3d 1153 (D.D.C. 2017). “52 U.S.C. § 30110 . In July 2014, plaintiffs brought this action against the Federal Election Commission.”
Holmes v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 99 F. Supp. 3d 123 (D.D.C. 2015). “See Order [Dkt 16], On November 17, 2014, the Court certified two constitutional questions to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for en banc consideration. See Memorandum and Findings [Dkt.”
Libertarian Nat'l Comm., Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 924 F.3d 533 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “2017) (en banc); see also 52 U.S.C. § 30110 ("The district court immediately shall certify all questions of constitutionality of [FECA] to the United States court of appeals for the circuit involved, which shall hear the matter sitting en banc.”
Indep. Inst. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 216 F. Supp. 3d 176 (D.D.C. 2016). “Instead, in September 2014, the Institute filed suit against the Federal Election Commission asserting that application of the Act’s disclosure provision to the specific Justice Safety Valve Act advertisement described above violated the First Amendment.”
Libertarian Nat'l Comm., Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 317 F. Supp. 3d 202 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit three questions: whether LNC's First Amendment rights are violated by (1) applying the annual contribution limits to "the bequest of Joseph Shaber," (2) "restricting the purposes for which the [LNC] may spend its money," in…”
Joseph Thomas v. Phil Bryant, 938 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2019). “52 U.S.C. § 30110 (a). Under the State’s interpretation and application of the “series modifier” canon, a three-judge district court would be required for statutory claims challenging “any amendment” to the BCRA, but not to “any provision” of the BCRA itself.”
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.