America First Legal Foundation v. Merrick Garland
Civil Action No. 2024-3105
| D.D.C. | Aug 5, 2025Background
- America First Legal Foundation (AFLF) sued the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Attorney General seeking to compel the registration of specific entities as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
- AFLF alleged that certain organizations and individuals were acting as agents of foreign principals (such as Hamas and other Palestinian entities) but had not registered under FARA.
- AFLF claimed the DOJ abdicated its enforcement obligations and sought relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of standing and to excuse production of the administrative record, arguing no judicial review was appropriate at this stage.
- The court focused on Article III standing—particularly injury in fact and redressability.
- The court granted both the motion to dismiss (with prejudice) and the motion to excuse record production.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (Injury in Fact) | AFLF is deprived of statutory info due from FARA registration | Injury is speculative; no right to info until registration occurs | No concrete and imminent injury; injury is too speculative |
| Standing (Redressability) | Court order can compel DOJ to register alleged agents | No guarantee court order results in registration or info release | Relief is speculative; court action wouldn't guarantee result |
| Private Action under FARA | APA allows suit to compel DOJ to enforce FARA | FARA offers no private right; enforcement is DOJ discretion | No private right of action under FARA |
| Excuse Record Rule 7(n) | Not directly disputed | Motion only raises threshold legal issues, not record-based review | Rule excused; case resolved on threshold grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Craig, 401 F. Supp. 3d 49 (D.D.C. 2019) (explaining FARA’s purpose to prevent covert foreign influence)
- United States v. McGoff, 831 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (describing FARA’s framework)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (setting out Article III standing requirements)
- Friends of Animals v. Jewell, 828 F.3d 989 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (clarifying standing analysis)
- Kareem v. Haspel, 986 F.3d 859 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (Article III standing in federal courts)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (rejecting standing based on speculative injuries)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (dismissal with prejudice standard)