Carolyn Maloney v. Emily Murphy
984 F.3d 50
D.C. Cir.2020Background
- 5 U.S.C. § 2954 (enacted 1928) authorizes the House Oversight Committee—or any seven members of it—to request and receive information from Executive agencies relating to committee jurisdiction.
- In 2017 Ranking Member Elijah Cummings and seven other Oversight Committee members requested GSA records regarding the Old Post Office lease to the Trump Organization; GSA refused, asserting individual members lack independent oversight authority.
- Requesters invoked § 2954 in multiple formal letters; GSA declined to comply and then issued a one‑page refusal that did not cite § 2954.
- Plaintiffs sued the Acting GSA Administrator; the district court dismissed for lack of Article III standing.
- The D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that a denied statutory information request is a concrete, particularized, and individualized informational injury that satisfies Article III; other merits and statutory‑interpretation issues were remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing / injury‑in‑fact | Denial of statutorily conferred information under §2954 is a concrete, particularized informational injury to the requesting members. | Informational injury under §2954 cannot confer Article III standing because the statutory right vests only in legislators (risking institutional claims). | Held: Informational injuries recognized by Supreme Court (e.g., FOIA cases) satisfy injury‑in‑fact; denial of §2954 requests is a concrete, particularized injury. |
| Particularization: personal v. institutional injury | The harm here is personal to the members who requested information (only they were deprived), not a diffuse institutional injury. | The harm is institutional (impairment of oversight/legislative function) and therefore cannot be asserted by individual members. | Held: Injury is personal/particularized—§2954 confers an individualized right to request information and only requesters suffered the withholding. |
| Causation & Redressability | GSA’s categorical refusal caused the informational deprivation; a court order compelling production would redress it. | None persuasive beyond disputing standing framework. | Held: Causation and redressability satisfied—remedy would be judicial compulsion like in FOIA suits. |
| Other procedural/merits defenses | §2954 creates enforceable right; equitable discretion and statutory scope support relief. | GSA argued no cause of action, equitable grounds, and §2954 inapplicability. | Held: Court only resolved standing; cause of action, equitable discretion, and merits were left for district court on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927) (establishes congressional power of inquiry as auxiliary to legislative function)
- Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) (distinguishes personal legislator injuries from institutional injuries; limits individual‑member standing)
- FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) (holding inability to obtain statutorily required information can be a concrete injury)
- Public Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989) (denial of statutorily authorized information under disclosure statutes confers standing)
- Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (recognizes individual legislator’s personal injury in being denied seat/salary)
- Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn, 968 F.3d 755 (D.C. Cir. en banc 2020) (applies rigorous standing analysis to disputes between branches; recognizes committee standing to enforce subpoena)
- Friends of Animals v. Jewell, 824 F.3d 1033 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (statutory disclosure requirement creates a right to information supporting standing)