Federal Election Commission v. Legi-Tech, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• refusing to “examine the internal deliberations” leading to ratification even though review may have been “nothing more than a ‘rubberstamp’”
• rejecting argument that “the FEC must repeat the entire administrative process” in order for ratification to be effective
• affirming decision of a reconstituted FEC, notwithstanding that the court was “willing to assume that no matter what course was followed — other than a dismissal with prejudice (which not even Legi-Tech dares request
• “[W]e cannot, as Legi-Tech argues, examine the internal deliberations of the Commission, at least absent a contention that one or more of the Commissioners were actually biased.”
• a new proceeding by a similar FEC panel, “given human nature, promises no more detached and ‘pure’ consideration of the merits of the case than the Commission’s ratification decision reflected”
• “Even were the Commission to return to square one ... it is virtually inconceivable that its decisions would differ in any way the second time from that which occurred the first time.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).