# Anh Cao v. Federal Election Commission

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · September 10, 2010 · 619 F.3d 410

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438346

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re: Anh CAO, Also Know as Joseph Cao; Republican National Committee; Republican Party of Louisiana. Anh Cao, Also Known as Joseph Cao; Republican National Committee, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Federal Election Commission, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 10, 2010
- **Citations:** 619 F.3d 410; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 19056
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jolly
- **Judges:** Jones, King, Jolly, Davis, Smith, Wiener, Garza, Benavides, Stewart, Dennis, Clement, Prado, Owen, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes
- **Cited by:** 41 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438346

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that whether restrictions impose too .stringent of a burden on political speech depends in part on whether the restrictions prevent the candidate from “effectively amassing the resources necessary to wage an effective campaign”
- holding that political party had standing to challenge expenditure and contribution limits where evidence showed it had met the proscribed limits and would have spent more but for the limits
- stating that the court's role is not to create arguments for adjudication but to adjudicate arguments presented
- noting that the role of the court is “not to create arguments for adjudication” or “raise [them] like a Phoenix from the ashes[,]” but “rather, [the court’s] role is to adjudicate the arguments with which [it is] presented”
- stating that court “is not to create arguments for adjudication — but rather, ... adjudicate those arguments, with which [it is] presented”

## Opinion text

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in result:
I concur in the result reached by the majority because I agree that it reflects the more accurate and realistic way the case has been presented for decision. There is much to admire in Chief Judge Jones’s dissent, and if I agreed that the argument she addresses was the question that plaintiffs were actually presenting for decision, I would concur in her opinion. Judge Clement has written clearly but broadly. In my view, she does not merely challenge the statute’s express provisions that effectively bar a Party from coordinating its efforts with the campaign of a candidate, but also the Supreme Court’s ruling that essentially upholds this provision. Both she and Chief Judge Jones ultimately may be correct. But, in my opinion, not today.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438346. Public record. Not legal advice.