Donald Trump waves as he departs a campaign event at Central Wisconsin Airport, Saturday, Sept. 7, 2024, in Mosinee, Wis. (AP Photo/Morry Gash).
A lawsuit filed in a federal court in Washington, D.C., alleges that President Donald Trump is trying to gain significant control over the decision-making process of the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
The lawsuit refers to Executive Order 14215, issued by the former president on Feb. 18 under the title “Ensuring Accountability For All Agencies.” This order asserts that the opinions of the President and the Attorney General on legal matters take precedence over all executive branch employees when carrying out their official duties. It also states that no employee can advocate for a legal interpretation that goes against the President’s position.
The plaintiffs, led by the Democratic National Committee, argue in their 23-page lawsuit that this executive order represents an unprecedented power grab by the President. They claim that this attempt violates established Supreme Court rulings concerning administrative agencies, especially those like the FEC, which is composed of multiple members from different parties and carries out quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions.
“As the Supreme Court has held for 90 years, it ‘cannot well be doubted’ that Congress possesses the authority to insulate from presidential micromanagement [such] agencies,” the lawsuit reads. “Congress’s authority is especially true in this context, where the credibility of the entire regulatory enterprise would be fatally undermined if the party controlling the White House can unilaterally structure campaign rules and adjudicate disputes to disadvantage its electoral competitors.”
The lawsuit seeks a limited injunction barring the White House and the U.S. Department of Justice from applying the executive order to the FEC as well as a declaration that the order is unlawful with regard to the FEC.
Additionally, the collective Democratic Party plaintiffs are seeking an explicit order from the court that several sections of the FEC’s originating statute — the Federal Election Campaign Act — are, in fact, constitutional, “notwithstanding the proclamations” of Trump’s order.
The lawsuit, in several sections, offers a history lesson on the origin of the FEC and how the agency was constructed, with bipartisan approval, in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal that brought down the presidency of Richard Nixon. The structure of the agency — six members are appointed; a maximum of three can be members of either major political party — requires a majority vote with at least one member from an opposite party, the lawsuit explains.
This baked-in bipartisan rule means regulated parties “can be certain that the outcome will not reflect the raw pursuit of electoral advantage by political opponents,” according to the lawsuit.
“For over fifty years, that certainty held,” the lawsuit reads.
Trump’s order could bring things crashing down, the plaintiffs allege.
“As applied to the Commission, Executive Order 14215 would eliminate FECA’s requirement that the executive branch’s legal interpretations of FECA’s provisions reflect the bipartisan consensus of an expert multimember board and replace that bipartisan consensus with the judgment of a single partisan political figure — the President of the United States,” according to the lawsuit.
In other words, the plaintiffs say the order could effectively render the FEC little more than a rubber-stamp for the White House.
The lawsuit is seeking an expedited schedule under the “speedy hearing” rule because of an extant action against the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) which accuses the adjunct group of improperly classifying some of their 2024 campaign ads.
This would amount to a sea change that would prove both disastrous in the immediate case, and in the long run, according to the Democratic Party.
From the filing, at length:
Plaintiffs’ core activities rely on the fundamental premise that the FEC’s decisions will be rendered by a bipartisan Commission that is made up of members of multiple political parties, each exercising independent judgment to determine — consistent with the statutory language and any applicable judicial opinions — what the law requires…
Executive Order 14215 obliterates this understanding. By providing that no employee of the executive branch may advance an interpretation that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, the Executive Order purports to provide President Trump — the leader of the Republican Party — with the ability to order the FEC to take particular positions on any question of law arising in the Commission’s performance of any of its duties.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
While the plaintiffs are not seeking a nationwide injunction that would apply to similarly-situated plaintiffs — or which might, plausibly, even extend to other agencies — the lawsuit warns against Trump’s executive order in broad strokes.
The order, the lawsuit claims, “purports to monopolize authority” to interpret federal law, asserts that agency officers should be “controlled” by the president, and aims to “extinguish the independence that Congress vested in these agencies.”
Still, the plaintiffs are focused on the order’s specific application to the FEC. The lawsuit suggests the government is itching for a constitutional battle — the kind of legal fight that would ultimately have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Executive Order 14215 purports to preclude the Commissioners and other FEC employees from advancing any legal positions other than those of the President and Attorney General in the course of their enforcement of FECA, on the ground that Article II requires the President to control legal interpretations for the entire executive branch,” the lawsuit goes on. “In other words, the Executive Order is grounded in the assertion that the provisions of FECA granting the Commissioners the power and duty to exercise independent legal judgment are unconstitutional infringements of the President’s executive power.”
Late Friday afternoon, the case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Judge Amir H. Ali, a Joe Biden appointee.
