Alan Bauer v. Mavi Marmara
2014 WL 7234818
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- Neutrality Act 18 U.S.C. § 962 authorizes forfeiture and bounty but contains no express private right of action.
- Bauer alleged he informed the U.S. Government of vessels to be used against Israel and sought forfeiture and bounty.
- District Court dismissed, holding no private action under § 962 and thus no stateable claim.
- U.S. Government agreed no private action and suggested lack of standing; district court’s dismissal focused on failure to establish standing.
- This court holds Bauer lacks Article III standing and thus lacks jurisdiction, affirming dismissal on standing grounds rather than on merits of state claim.
- Statutory history and caselaw indicate informers under bounty statutes generally have no standing to sue for forfeiture; government control of enforcement is a key theme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Neutrality Act provides a private cause of action and standing for an informer | Bauer: implied private right to pursue forfeiture and bounty | Mavi Marmara: no standing under Neutrality Act; no implied private action | No private right or standing; informer lacks standing under NA |
| Whether Bauer has Article III standing to sue for relief under the Neutrality Act | Bauer asserts injury from violation of statute and entitlement to bounty | Government/Respondents dispute injury-in-fact and redressability | Lacks injury in fact and redressability; standing denied |
| Whether Stevens v. United States ex rel. Stevens supports standing for a private informer under the Neutrality Act | Bauer relies on assignment/relator reasoning from Stevens | Stevens does not apply to the Neutrality Act; no assignment here | Stevens does not support standing; no private assignment under NA |
| Whether historical informer statutes imply a private right to sue under the Neutrality Act | Historically, some bounty statutes allowed private suits | No universal implication for NA; language and structure matter | No implied private right; absence of explicit language controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (three-part standing test (injury, causation, redressability))
- Stevens v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (U.S. 2000) (False Claims Act standing through assignee concept)
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (standing is jurisdictional; jurisdictional issues cannot be forfeited)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (standing as jurisdictional; injury must be real)
- Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1973) (private citizen lacks prosecutorial interest)
- The Three Friends, 166 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1897) (forfeiture/enforcement by Government)
- Olivier v. Hyland, 186 F. at 843 (5th Cir. 1911) (enforcement of neutrality laws under government control)
- Adams v. Woods, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 336 (U.S. 1805) (forfeiture context; distinctions between private right and limitations)
- United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537 (U.S. 1943) (dictum on informer standing not adopted for NA)
- The Venus, 180 F. 635 (E.D. La. 1910) (informer's rights not settled under NA)
- Gelston v. Hoyt, 16 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1818) (discussion of enforcement in neutrality)