Argued February 20, 2024 Decided October 8, 2024

No. 23-7040

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, APPELLANT

v.

45COMMITTEE, INC., APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:22-cv-01115)

Molly E. Danahy argued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs were Adav Noti, Kevin P. Hancock, Alexandra Copper, and Allison Walter.

Brinton Lucas argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Brett A. Shumate, E. Stewart Crosland, and Charles E.T. Roberts.

Brett R. Nolan was on the brief for amicus curiae Institute for Free Speech in support of appellee. 2 Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, CHILDS, Circuit Judge, and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge SRINIVASAN.

SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge: In 2018, Campaign Legal Center filed an administrative complaint with the Federal Election Commission. The complaint alleged that 45Committee, Inc., had violated the Federal Election Campaign Act by failing to register as a political committee. Almost two years went by and the Commission took no discernible action on the complaint. Campaign Legal Center then sued the Commission, seeking a declaration that the Commission’s failure to act on the complaint was “contrary to law.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8). The court agreed and granted that relief.

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, if the Commission failed to “conform with” that contrary-to-law declaration within thirty days, Campaign Legal Center could bring a citizen suit against 45Committee to try to enforce the allegations in the administrative complaint. Id. § 30109(a)(8)(C). Thirty days came and went with no apparent action from the Commission. The court that issued the contrary-to-law decision then entered an order finding that the Commission had failed to conform, clearing the way for Campaign Legal Center to bring this citizen suit.

Shortly after the initiation of the suit, however, it came to light that the Commission in fact had taken a previously unknown action in the thirty-day period following the court’s contrary-to-law determination. Specifically, the Commission had held a vote on whether to investigate the allegations in Campaign Legal Center’s administrative complaint. The vote failed, so no Commission investigation ensued. 3 After learning that the Commission had held that vote in the thirty-day window following the contrary-to-law determination, the district court dismissed this citizen suit. The court reasoned that, by holding the vote, the Commission had conformed with the determination that its prior inaction was contrary to law, and that conformance precluded the bringing of a citizen suit.

Campaign Legal Center now appeals. It argues that the district court should not have second-guessed the previous determination that the Commission had failed to conform with the contrary-to-law determination. And it further argues that, regardless, the Commission’s unsuccessful vote on whether to initiate an investigation did not amount to an action that conformed with the contrary-to-law determination and that thereby foreclosed this citizen suit.

We disagree on both scores. We conclude that, after learning of the previously unknown vote held by the Commission, the district court was free to consider afresh whether the Commission had conformed with the contrary-to- law determination. We further conclude that the Commission’s holding of the vote did constitute conformance with the contrary-to-law determination so as to preclude this citizen suit.

I.

A.

1.

Congress establishe