Background
Georgia law permits certain officials and party nominees to establish leadership committees that may accept unlimited contributions and coordinate spending with a candidate’s campaign. Safe Affordable Georgia, Inc., a hybrid political action committee chaired by Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, could accept unlimited donations for independent spending but could not accept candidate-earmarked funds or make unlimited coordinated expenditures.
During the 2026 Republican gubernatorial primary, Raffensperger competed against Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones, who had formed a leadership committee. Safe Affordable Georgia sued state officials, alleging that the unequal treatment violated the First Amendment, and sought an emergency preliminary injunction allowing it to support Raffensperger on the same terms. The district court denied relief. While the appeal was pending, Raffensperger failed to advance to the runoff, Jones lost the runoff, and the primary ended.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Circuit held that the end of the primary rendered the appeal and the entire action moot. Safe Affordable Georgia had sought relief tied to supporting Raffensperger in that election, and federal courts could no longer provide meaningful relief after his campaign and the primary had ended. The court therefore dismissed the appeal and remanded with instructions for the district court to dismiss the case as moot.
The court also rejected the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception. Safe Affordable Georgia’s suggestion that it might coordinate with candidates in future elections, including Raffensperger, was too speculative to establish a reasonable expectation that the same dispute would recur. Judge Jordan agreed that the preliminary-injunction appeal was moot but dissented from directing dismissal of the entire lawsuit, reasoning that the district court should decide on remand whether a broader or amended claim remained viable.
Key Takeaways
- An election-related request for preliminary relief becomes moot when the relevant election ends and the court can no longer grant effective relief.
- Broad statutory wording in a requested injunction does not preserve a controversy when the complaint, arguments, and requested relief were substantively tied to a particular race.
- The capable-of-repetition exception requires a reasonable, nonspeculative expectation that the same complaining party will face the same challenged action again.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the jurisdictional difficulties facing campaign-finance plaintiffs seeking relief during short election cycles. A plaintiff must plead and support an ongoing or reasonably recurring injury; speculation about participation in future campaigns will not necessarily prevent mootness once the targeted election ends.
The ruling did not resolve the merits of Safe Affordable Georgia’s First Amendment challenge. It instead turned on Article III jurisdiction and the narrow scope of the controversy the committee presented.