In Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 118 S.Ct. 1777, 141 L.Ed.2d 10 (1998), a group of voters filed an administrative complaint with the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") asking it to force a certain political organization to comply with the reporting requirements for political action committees ("PACs"). See id. at 17, 118 S.Ct. 1777. The FEC dismissed the complaint on the ground that the organization did not fit the definition of a PAC under federal law. See id. The voters appealed the FEC's dismissal of their complaint and the FEC defended on the ground that the voters' claim was not redressable. See id. at 19. The FEC argued that, even if it misinterpreted the definition of a PAC, it maintained the option not to act on the voters' complaint as a matter of prosecutorial discretion. See id. at 25, 118 S.Ct. 1777. The Court disagreed that the FEC's discretionary authority deprived the voters of standing. See id. The Court explained that, even though the FEC might ultimately decline to act on the voters' complaint, the voters' injury was redressed by assuring that the FEC's discretionary decision was based on a correct understanding of the relevant law. In FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 25, 118 S.Ct. 1777, 141 L.Ed.2d 10 (1998), the Supreme Court specifically addressed this very issue. There the FEC contended that plaintiffs lacked standing because even if the agency "agreed with the plaintiffs' view of the law," it was "possible" that the FEC could "still have decided in the exercise of its discretion" not to grant them relief. Id. According to the FEC, plaintiffs had failed to show that their alleged harm was (1) fairly traceable to the FEC's decision and (2) redressable by judicial action. The Supreme Court flatly rejected this argument, explaining that it could not "know that the FEC would have exercised its . . . discretion" to deny plaintiffs relief. Id. The Court further explained: Agencies often have discretion about whether or not to take a particular action. Yet those adversely affected by a discretionary agency decision generally have standing to complain that the agency based its decision upon an improper legal ground. If a reviewing court agrees that the agency misinterpreted the law, it will set aside the agency's action . . . even though the agency . . . might later, in the exercise of its lawful discretion, reach the same result for a different reason. Thus plaintiffs' "injury in fact" is "fairly traceable" to the FEC's decision . . ., even though the FEC might reach the same result exercising its discretionary powers lawfully. For similar reasons, the courts in this case can "redress" plaintiffs' "injury in fact." Id. Thus, the Court in Akins held that a plaintiff could establish redressability simply by demonstrating that an agency "misinterpreted the law," even though the agency might ultimately "reach the same result." The Court recognized that, in this situation, a plaintiff can establish redressability without demonstrating that the agency would likely grant the ultimate relief sought; to require a showing of likelihood of ultimate relief in this situation would involve courts in the speculative (if not impossible) task of predicting how an agency will exercise its discretion.