In the 1994 case of Federal Election Commission v. NRA Political Victory Fund et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Rifle Association's (NRA) political action committee, stating that a provision requiring at least one judge from the U.S. District Court for D.C and two judges from other districts to sit on a special three-judge district court was unconstitutional because it infringed upon separation of powers principles by directing certain cases to particular federal judges based on their status as current or former members of specific courts rather than through random assignment. The FEC had sought review by this special panel after an initial ruling against them regarding campaign finance violations alleged against NRA-PVF, but due to this decision, they were denied access to this specialized judicial forum.

The dissenting opinion in the Federal Election Commission v. NRA Political Victory Fund case argued that the Supreme Court should not have decided on the constitutionality of a provision allowing a court of appeals judge to sit on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, as it was unnecessary for resolving this particular dispute. The dissenters believed that by ruling on this issue, which they saw as unrelated to campaign finance law under consideration in this case, the majority had overstepped its bounds and made an unwarranted decision about separation-of-powers principles. They also disagreed with how their colleagues interpreted these principles, arguing instead that having a court of appeals judge serve on FISA did not violate any constitutional provisions or disrupt balance among branches of government.