McConnell v. Federal Election Commission

Background

The appeals come from the District of Columbia district court. The opinion directs parties who were plaintiffs in the District Court and parties who were defendants in the District Court to follow a set schedule for filing briefs and serving them on opposing parties. The order also says the Court has “probable jurisdiction,” indicating it likely has authority to hear these appeals.

Reasoning

The central procedural questions were whether to consolidate the related appeals, to note jurisdiction, and to set a timetable for briefing and argument. The Court consolidated the cases, noted probable jurisdiction, and allotted a total of four hours for oral argument. It required plaintiffs’ briefs to address the questions presented in the jurisdictional statements and ordered specific filing and service deadlines: plaintiffs’ briefs due July 8, 2003; defendants’ briefs due August 5, 2003; and any reply briefs due August 21, 2003. All briefs were to be filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on the opposing parties. The cases were set for oral argument at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, September 8, 2003. The order also cites the lower-court reports at 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 and 948.

Real world impact

The ruling is procedural: it organizes how the appeals will proceed and forces parties to meet tight filing and service deadlines. Consolidation means the same schedule and argument time apply to related parties. This is not a final decision on the merits; it sets the timetable and procedures for the Court to hear the appeals.