City of N.Y. v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 913 F.3d 423

Background

The Brady Act and later statutes (NICS and NICS Improvement Amendments Act/NIAA, Fix NICS) created a federal background-check system (NICS) drawing on records agencies, including DOD, must submit. States/municipalities may permissively access NICS under DOJ/FBI regulations to perform state-law functions (e.g., licensing, firearm disposition).
DOD historically failed to timely and comprehensively report disqualifying conviction records to the FBI/NICS; Congress imposed periodic reporting and accountability measures to improve compliance.
Three municipalities (including Philadelphia) that use NICS brought an APA suit under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) to compel DOD to fully comply with its statutory reporting obligations, seeking broad injunctive relief and court-ordered compliance plans.
The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, finding plaintiffs lacked standing (informational injury) and failed to identify a discrete, reviewable agency action under the APA.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding the municipalities’ claim was a non-reviewable programmatic challenge to internal agency operations and did not identify a discrete, legally compelled agency action affecting the plaintiffs’ rights or obligations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the municipalities may compel DOD under the APA to comply with NIAA reporting	Municipalities argued their permissive access to NICS gives them standing and authorizes them to compel DOD to perform its statutory reporting obligations to improve NICS data they rely on	DOD argued plaintiffs challenge a programmatic, non-discrete failure to act and that APA §706(1) only compels discrete, legally required agency actions determining rights/obligations	Held for DOD: APA does not permit programmatic oversight; plaintiffs failed to identify a discrete, reviewable agency action that determines their legal rights/obligations
Whether plaintiffs alleged a legally cognizable informational injury for standing	Plaintiffs asserted harm from inaccurate/incomplete NICS data they use to carry out state duties	Defendants contended the alleged injury is indirect and stems from government-to-government reporting failures not altering plaintiffs’ legal rights	Court did not reach full constitutional analysis but found APA jurisdictional defects dispositive; municipalities failed to show a compel-able action under §706(1)
Whether the requested remedies (court-ordered schedules, compliance plans, monthly reports) are permissible under the APA	Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief requiring systemic reforms and judicial supervision until full compliance	Defendants argued such relief would require intrusive, day-to-day judicial management of executive functions and is barred by SUWA and separation-of-powers principles	Held that requested remedies demonstrate programmatic nature of the claim and are not available under the APA
Whether permissive access to NICS transforms inter-agency reporting into reviewable action	Plaintiffs argued their access makes them entitled to compel better inter-agency information sharing	Defendants argued NICS access is permissive and does not change rights/obligations or render internal federal data-sharing subject to judicial compulsion	Held that permissive access does not convert internal inter-agency information transfers into discrete, reviewable agency actions

Key Cases Cited

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (limits APA §706(1) relief to discrete, legally required actions; forbids programmatic challenges)
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (federal government may not commandeer state officers)
FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (sovereign immunity is jurisdictional)
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (agency actions must have immediate practical legal effect to be reviewable)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (courts must ensure jurisdiction before reaching merits)
ICC v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 287 U.S. 178 (1932) (mandamus limited to specific, unequivocal commands)
Village of Bald Head Island v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 714 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 2013) (APA does not cover everything an agency does; discreteness requirement prevents judicial micromanagement)