Federal Election Commission v. James E. Akins, Richard Curtiss, Paul Findley, Robert J. Hanks, Andrew Killgore, and Orin Parker
The Court decided that an individual could sue for a violation of federal law under a congressional statute that created a general right to access certain information.· AI-written
524 U.S. 11 · No. 96-1590 · 1997 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Jun 1, 1998 · argued Jan 14, 1998
Judicial power · Standing to sue: statutory standing
Majority opinion: Stephen Breyer
The voteMajorityDissent
6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Vacated and remanded. Federal Election Commission won.
What this ruling means
Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.
Federal Election Commission was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding that an individual could sue for a violation of a federal law pursuant to a statute enacted by the U.S. Congress which created a general right to access certain information.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1997 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(6)
Stephen BreyerWrote the majority opinion
John StevensJoined the majority
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
David SouterJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
Antonin ScaliaWrote a dissent
Sandra O'ConnorJoined a dissent
Clarence ThomasJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Federal Election CommissionFederal Election Commission
- Respondent
- James E. Akins, Richard Curtiss, Paul Findley, Robert J. Hanks, Andrew Killgore, and Orin ParkerVoter, prospective voter, elector, or a nonelective official seeking reapportionment or redistricting of legislative districts (POL)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 2 U.S.C. § 431
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 1, 1998DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: vacated and remanded. Federal Election Commission won.
- Jan 14, 1998ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit: reversed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the District Of Columbia U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
16 other argued cases since 1946 on standing to sue: statutory standing, newest first.
- Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami, Florida137 S. Ct. 1296May 1, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1296Judicial power5–36–3 band
- Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak567 U.S. 209Jun 18, 2012 · 567 U.S. 209Judicial power8–18–1 band
- Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Shirley Williams et al.547 U.S. 516Jun 5, 2006 · 547 U.S. 516Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Joseph Anza, et al. v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.547 U.S. 451Jun 5, 2006 · 547 U.S. 451Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Brad Bennett, et al. v. Michael Spear, et al.520 U.S. 154Mar 19, 1997 · 520 U.S. 154Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc., dba Brown Shoe Company517 U.S. 544May 13, 1996 · 517 U.S. 544Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company et al.514 U.S. 122Mar 21, 1995 · 514 U.S. 122Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Robert G. Holmes, Jr. v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation, et al.503 U.S. 258Mar 24, 1992 · 503 U.S. 258Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Keith R. Gollust, et al. v. Ira L. Mendell, etc., et al.501 U.S. 115Jun 10, 1991 · 501 U.S. 115Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Air Courier Conference of America v. American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, et al.498 U.S. 517Feb 26, 1991 · 498 U.S. 517Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- L. Douglas Wilder, Governor of Virginia, et al. v. Virginia Hospital Association496 U.S. 498Jun 14, 1990 · 496 U.S. 498Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Jackson Transit Authority et al. v. Local Division 1285, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO-CLC457 U.S. 15Jun 7, 1982 · 457 U.S. 15Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Havens Realty Corp. et al. v. Coleman et al.455 U.S. 363Feb 24, 1982 · 455 U.S. 363Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Gladstone, Realtors, et al. v. Village of Bellwood et al.441 U.S. 91Apr 17, 1979 · 441 U.S. 91Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Trafficante et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et al.409 U.S. 205Dec 7, 1972 · 409 U.S. 205Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Hardin, Mayor of Tazewell, et al. v. Kentucky Utilities Co.390 U.S. 1Jan 16, 1968 · 390 U.S. 1Judicial power6–18–1 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.