The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Wednesday, January 14, 1998
Decision: Monday, June 1, 1998
Issues: Judicial Power, Standing to Sue, Statutory Standing

Advocates

Daniel M. Schember (Argued the cause for the respondents)
Seth P. Waxman (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) imposes recordkeeping and disclosure requirements upon political committees which receive more than $1,000 in "contributions" or which make more than $1,000 in "expenditures" in a year "for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office." Certain assistance does not count toward the expenditure cap if it takes the form of a "communication" by a "membership organization or corporation" "to its members" as long as the organization is not "organized primarily for the purpose of influencing [any individual's] nomination... or election." A complaint filed by a group of voters asked the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to order the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to make public the information that FECA demands of political committees. Ultimately, the FEC found that AIPAC was not a political committee because its major purpose was not the nomination or election of candidates. The en banc Court of Appeals concluded that the FEC's major purpose test improperly interpreted FECA's definition of a political committee.

Question

Do voters have the proper legal standing to challenge the Federal Election Commission's decisions regarding political committees?

Conclusion

Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that voters seeking information, to which they believe FECA entitles them, have standing to challenge the FEC's decision not to bring an enforcement action. Because FECA seeks to address the voters' injury, the failure to obtain relevant information, Justice Breyer concluded that the voters had prudential standing. Furthermore, because the voters' inability to obtain information constitutes an "injury in fact," continued Justice Breyer, the voters had standing under Article III. The Court did not address the FEC's major purpose test, allowing the FEC to address the issue under newly proposed rules. Justice Antonin Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas joined.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 6 votes for FEC, 3 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: 2 U.S.C. 431
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the minority, joined Scalia's dissent
O'Connor
Wrote a dissent
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the minority, joined Scalia's dissent
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Wrote the majority opinion
Breyer
Full Opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_96_1590/>
(last visited ).