Martin Tractor Co. v. Federal Election Com'n

3 Citing briefs

  1. Christian Civic League of Maine, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed April 17, 2006

    15 Case 1:06-cv-00614-LFO-CKK-JWR Document 17 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 22 of 52 708 F.Supp. 9, 14 (D. Me. 1989). See also Martin Tractor Co. v. FEC, 627 F.2d 375, 388 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Anderson v. FEC, 634 F.2d 3, 5 (1st Cir. 1980) (en banc). “ ‘If there is one doctrine more deeply rooted than any other in the process of constitutional adjudication, it is that we ought not to pass on questions of constitutionality ... unless such adjudication is unavoidable.’

  2. Doe v. Lhamon et al

    REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed December 16, 2016

    Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. FERC, 866 F.2d 477, 481 (D.C.Cir.1989) (finding no hardship because there was no indication that petitioner’s interests would be “inadequately protected by judicial review following an adverse determination.”); Martin Tractor Co. v. FEC, 460 F. Supp. 1017, 1021 (D.D.C. 1978) (refusing pre-enforcement review where “the enforcement procedure which is yet to be invoked contemplates mandatory conciliation before legal action may be taken”), aff’d, 627 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Case 1:16-cv-01158-RC Document 28 Filed 12/16/16 Page 28 of 33 – 22 – 692, 702 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Clean Air Implementation Project v. EPA, 150 F.3d 1200, 1205–06 (D.C. Cir. 1998). That the 2011 DCL’s standard-of-proof guidance has not truly put OKWU in a “paradigmatic hardship situation,” Opp.

  3. Christian Civic League of Maine, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission

    REPLY re in Support of its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims Regarding Hypothetical Grass Roots Lobbying

    Filed July 7, 2006

    National Conference of Catholic Bishops v. Smith, 653 F.2d 535, 539-40 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (quoting Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1972)). See also Martin Tractor v. FEC, 627 F.2d 375, 379 n.9 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (“the mere existence of a statute, regulation, or articulated policy is ordinarily not enough to sustain a judicial challenge, even by one who reasonably believes that the law applies to him and will be enforced against him according to its terms”). Accordingly, CCL’s claims regarding its hypothetical grassroots lobbying ads are not ripe, and the Court should dismiss them.