Judge Tosses Carr’s Lawsuit Against Burt Jones. Not On The Merits, On Standing

Well, that was quick.

Informed readers will recall that I pointed out that when Attorney General Chris Carr sued Lt. Gov. Burt Jones that he may be right about the unequal treatment of campaigns under the current leadership PAC structure that allows the LG to raise uncapped contributions, even during a legislative session, while his primary opponents cannot.

This afternoon, U.S. District Judge Victoria Marie Calvert denied Carr’s request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the case without prejudice. Plain English: Carr did not get the freeze he wanted on Jones’s leadership committee, and the suit is out of court for now. Not because the judge blessed leadership committees, but because Carr aimed at the wrong target and asked for the wrong fix.

Here is the core problem the court identified; to have standing you need injury, traceability, and redressability. The judge essentially accepted that the leadership committee framework creates unequal treatment but could not proceed. The breakdown came next. The injury is not traceable to Jones for doing what the statute allows, and an order against Jones would not fix it because other leadership committees could step in. If you want the rules changed, you sue the officials who enforce the rules, not the candidate using them.

Carr also told the court he was not challenging contribution limits or the leadership committee statute itself, and he did not name the state officials who actually enforce Georgia’s campaign finance laws. The court was not going to assume the law is unconstitutional, enjoin only Jones and his committee, and call that a remedy. That is why the injunction was denied and the case was dismissed without prejudice.

For anyone dusting off talking points from earlier leadership committee fights, the order adds useful context. Prior preliminary injunctions in other cases applied to the parties in those cases and never ripened into final judgments after appeals. So they were not universal ground rules that Jones violated.

This is also where Carr runs into a procedural bind. In earlier challenges, the plaintiffs sued the enforcers. David Perdue’s team and Stacey Abrams’s team named the Attorney General in his official capacity along with Campaign Finance Commission officials, because those are the officers a federal court can enjoin from enforcing the scheme. Carr is now the plaintiff so he cannot also appear as “Attorney General Chris Carr, in his official capacity” on the defense side, which is likely why he left the enforcement officials off and targeted Jones instead. That pleading choice is what created the standing problem the court flagged, since an order against Jones would not fix the enforcement framework.

Also, it is awkward to sue state agencies when you are also their lawyer. In other contexts the solution is conflict counsel or a special assistant attorney general, but that only works if someone other than the Attorney General is the plaintiff.

The path forward is straightforward if Carr or anyone else wants another try. Bring a constitutional challenge to the statute and the enforcement scheme, and name the officials who enforce it in their official capacities. The court dismissed without prejudice, which means the door is open for a properly framed case that squarely presents the First Amendment and equal protection questions other candidates have raised. Today’s ruling did not bless the statute but said this particular lawsuit, framed this particular way, cannot go forward.

As of today, leadership committees still have a green light in the 2026 GOP primary. If the Attorney General wants the playing field level, he has to challenge the rulebook and the referees who enforce it, not the opponent who is following it.