Richard J. Orloski v. Federal Election Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• applying an “extremely deferential standard” to the FEC’s determination that a complaint failed to establish “reason to believe” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “If the FEC’s interpretation unduly compromises the Act’s purposes, it is not a reasonable accommodation under the Act, and it would therefore not be entitled to deference.”
• “The standard to be applied by this court in reviewing the FEC’s decision not to investigate Orloski’s complaint is whether the FEC has acted ‘contrary to law.’”
• corporate donations to picnic during which incumbent candidate addressed constitutents
• FEC interpretation of FECA should be given deference because FEC's statutory responsibility to issue advisory opinions \implies that Congress intended the Commission to fill in gaps left in the statute and to resolve any ambiguities in the statutory language\
• FEC interpretation of FECA should be given deference because FEC's statutory responsibility to issue advisory opinions \implies that Congress intended the Commission to fill in gaps left in the statute and to resolve any ambiguities in the statutory language\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).