Court grants dismissal in SMP v. FEC (26-336)

On September 15, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the court) granted Intervenor-Defendant National Republican Senatorial Committee's (NRSC) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On September 16, 2026, Senate Majority PAC (SMP or plaintiff) filed a Notice of Appeal with the district court.

Background

On August 13, 2025, plaintiff filed an administrative complaint with the Commission that alleged that the NRSC violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) by impermissibly using funds from the NRSC's "legal proceedings" and "headquarters" accounts (collectively, "specialty accounts") to pay for candidate television advertisements.

On February 5, 2026, plaintiff filed suit alleging that the FEC had failed to act on its administrative complaint and asked the court to declare that inaction contrary to law and to order the FEC to conform with that declaration within 30 days.

On April 6, 2026, the FEC notified the court that the Commission lacks a quorum and is without the authority to litigate the merits of plaintiff's complaint.

On April 7, 2026, the NRSC filed a motion for leave to intervene as a defendant and to dismiss SMP's complaint.

Analysis

The court determined that SMP lacked standing because it cannot "meet its burden to show that a favorable ruling is likely to redress its alleged injuries."

The court noted that under the Act, the FEC, which currently lacks a quorum, is not authorized to take further enforcement action when it cannot secure affirmative votes from four Commissioners. The court concluded that, "while even if technically within the Court's power to compel the FEC to conduct a reason-to-believe vote by its current two commissioners, such a vote would be doomed to fail and would not constitute the FEC's genuine engagement with the merits of plaintiff's administrative complaint, so the Court 'cannot grant any effectual relief'. (citation omitted)"

Accordingly, the court granted NRSC's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Resources