Court dismisses appeal from American Future Fund as moot

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal from the American Future Fund, Inc. (the Fund) concerning New York's independent expenditure disclosure law. The court ruled that the appeal is moot because the political advertisements in question were tied to the 2025 New York City Mayoral Election, which has already occurred. This decision affects the Fund, which sought to challenge the state's regulations on political advertising.

The Fund had aimed to run advertisements criticizing socialism and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) before the election. However, the New York State Board of Elections had indicated that these ads could be considered independent expenditures, requiring the Fund to register and disclose its spending. The Fund's appeal was based on a denial of a preliminary injunction that would have allowed it to run the ads without facing these requirements.

Background

The American Future Fund is a political advocacy group that engages in issue advocacy and political advertising. In this case, the Fund sought to challenge New York's independent expenditure disclosure law, which mandates that entities spending money on political advertisements disclose their expenditures to the state. The law defines independent expenditures as those that advocate for or against a clearly identified candidate.

The Fund filed a complaint against the New York State Board of Elections, Governor Kathleen Hochul, Attorney General Letitia James, and Chief Enforcement Counsel Michael L. Johnson, seeking both a declaratory judgment that the law was unconstitutional and a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the law against its proposed advertisements. The district court denied the Fund's request for a preliminary injunction, leading to the appeal.

The Fund's advertisements were intended to run in the lead-up to the 2025 mayoral election, which featured Zohran Mamdani, a candidate associated with the DSA. The state argued that the Fund's ads referenced a clearly identified candidate, thus falling under the disclosure requirements. The Fund contended that its ads were merely issue advocacy and did not explicitly mention any candidate.

The Ruling

The Second Circuit, in its ruling on November 6, 2026, concluded that the appeal was moot. The court stated, "because the Fund's motion for a preliminary injunction sought prospective relief tethered to an election that has since passed, the Fund's appeal is moot." The judges noted that the Fund's request for a preliminary injunction was directly related to its ability to run advertisements before the election, which had already occurred.

The court further explained that since the underlying action remains before the district court, the appeal does not meet the mootness exception for controversies that are "capable of repetition, yet evading review." The judges emphasized that the Fund's injury was tied to the 2025 election and that the appeal could not address that specific harm any longer.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for the American Future Fund and similar organizations that engage in political advertising. The decision reinforces the notion that appeals concerning election-related issues can become moot if the related election has already occurred. It also highlights the importance of timely legal action in election-related disputes.

The dismissal of the appeal leaves the Fund with the option to pursue its underlying claims in the district court, but it also indicates that future challenges to similar laws must be brought in a timely manner to avoid mootness. The ruling may deter other organizations from delaying legal action when facing similar regulatory challenges.

What's Next

While the appeal has been dismissed, the underlying case remains pending in the district court. The Fund may still seek to challenge the independent expenditure disclosure law in future elections. If the Fund decides to file a new motion for a preliminary injunction related to future elections, the Second Circuit has indicated that it would expedite the review of such motions.