Federal Electoral Commission v. Akins, 524 US 11 (1998) [1] , is the case of the United States Supreme Court which ruled that a person may prosecute violations of federal law in accordance with the law passed by the US Congress that creates the general right to access certain information.
Video FEC v. Akins
Fakta
The plaintiffs are registered voters who have requested the Federal Electoral Commission of the defendant ("FEC") to determine that an organization called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ("AIPAC") is a "political committee" subject to certain rules and reporting requirements under the Act - invite the Federal Election Campaign, because AIPAC has exceeded certain spending limits. The FEC has determined that AIPAC has indeed crossed that threshold, but still does not require it to make the necessary reports because it is problem-oriented, not related to the campaign. The plaintiffs requested a review in the District Court, which provides an assessment of the conclusions to FEC; this decision was affirmed by the Appeals Court panel, but the Court of Appeal en banc was reversed. The government sought certiorari, and challenged the plaintiff on the grounds that the plaintiff did not suffer 'actual injuries'; that if the plaintiff is injured, it can not be traced to a FEC decision; and that the decision in favor of the plaintiff will not improve their injury.
Maps FEC v. Akins
Problem
Has the plaintiff suffered the injury in fact enough to build a stand?
Court Opinion
The court, in the opinion of Judge Breyer, stated that Congress has, by law, permitted "any party harmed by the Commission's order" to file a lawsuit, which is a broad grant; not getting the information requested is "injured in fact" such as rejection of other information that must be required to be given to citizens by the government. The complaint is a "general complaint," but the dangers are concrete enough to overcome this, and the dangers are quite traceable to the FEC - although FEC can find other reasons not to make AIPAC provide information. ("[W] here the dangers are concrete, although widely shared, the Court has found 'injury in fact." " Federal Electoral Commission v. Akins 524 U.S. 11, 24 (1998))
The court distinguishes this case from a lawsuit in which an individual seeks help based on only a standing taxpayer - the land is not enough to stand up to sue. It instead uses an "interest zone test," asking if the injury is declared falling into a zone of interest protected by law.
This case was submitted to FEC to review the definition of 'members'. The court noted that the FEC produced new guidelines on this issue, which would address it and did not require a new legal precedent. The plaintiffs are very disappointed with the decision not to intervene, because the effort to have AIPAC that is legally declared a political action committee is a higher priority than a (successful) attempt to show that they have filed this lawsuit in the first place. While they repeatedly tried the filing to have the case reopened, this was completely rejected, and in 2010 the Federal court at D.C. decided that the lawsuit was inappropriate as an election law and was officially and ultimately dismissed.
Dissent
Judge Scalia wrote a different opinion stating that the facts of the law differentiate between 'anyone' (in defining a class of people who can complain to FEC for offenses) and 'any injured party' (in defining a class of people- whoever can file a lawsuit in federal court on a FEC decision on a complaint) shows the limiting power of the latter provisions - anyone can file a complaint with FEC if they believe a violation has occurred, but only those who have actually been harmed (suffering particular injuries) as the consequences of the FEC's decision on the complaint may be demanding.
See also
- List of US Supreme Court cases, volume 524
- List of US Supreme Court cases
- List of US Supreme Court cases by volume
External links
- ^ 524 U.S. 11 (Text of opinion on Findlaw.com)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments