592 F.Supp.3d 568
E.D. Tex.2022Background
- Plaintiffs Consumers’ Research and By Two are repeat FOIA requesters who challenge CPSC actions and rulemaking that affect their statutory FOIA rights.
- The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is a five-member commission with staggered seven-year terms; statute permits removal only for "neglect of duty or malfeasance."
- In Jan. 2021 the CPSC adopted a Final Rule raising FOIA fees; Plaintiffs submitted FOIA requests (some fee-waiver requests denied) and exhausted administrative appeal for several requests.
- Plaintiffs filed suit asserting: Count I (Article II/separation‑of‑powers challenge to the removal restriction), Count II (APA challenge to the Final Rule), and Count III (FOIA/relief from CPSC FOIA processing).
- The court found Plaintiffs had Article III standing (informational, imminent financial, and constitutional injuries), rejected mootness arguments based on partial document releases, and held the statutory removal restriction violates Article II.
- The court granted declaratory relief as to Count I, denied the government’s motion to dismiss in part, and entered partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) to allow immediate appeal of the constitutional question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Plaintiffs suffer informational, imminent financial (increased FOIA fees), and ongoing Article II injury from being regulated by an unaccountable agency | No concrete injury; some records released so claims moot; fees not yet assessed so no injury | Plaintiffs have standing: informational injury, impending/ongoing fee injury, and constitutional injury established; case not moot despite partial releases |
| Mootness | Release of some records does not moot claims about the Final Rule or future FOIA processing | Releases of specific records (Requests 324/330) moot those requests | Release of specific records does not moot broader claims challenging the Final Rule or removal restriction; case remains live |
| Constitutionality of removal restriction (Article II/Humphrey's Executor) | CPSC commissioners wield substantial executive power (rulemaking, adjudication, civil enforcement, subpoenas); Humphrey's exception inapplicable | Multimember, staggered-term structure like the FTC fits Humphrey's Executor; longstanding structure is permissible | The CPSC exercises substantial executive power; Humphrey's Executor does not save the removal restriction; §2053(a) violates Article II |
| Remedy / Relief | Seek declaratory judgment that removal restriction is unconstitutional and prospective relief; request immediate appeal under Rule 54(b) | Plaintiffs cannot obtain declaratory relief without showing a nexus/compensable harm; no private cause of action; relief won't undo past FOIA decisions | Declaratory relief is appropriate (Free Enterprise Fund governs); plaintiffs have an implied right to challenge separation‑of‑powers violations; partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) (upheld removal limits for multimember commission exercising non‑executive, quasi‑legislative/judicial functions)
- Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926) (President's unrestricted removal power for purely executive officers)
- Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010) (removal restriction unconstitutional where officers exercise substantial executive power; declaratory relief available)
- Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020) (single‑Director agency exercising significant executive power—removal restriction unconstitutional; Humphrey's narrow)
- Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021) (applies Seila Law principles to FHFA; clarifies limits on retrospective relief and nexus requirement)
- Wiener v. United States, 357 U.S. 349 (1958) (upheld removal limits for an essentially adjudicatory commission)
- Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986) (separation‑of‑powers injury and limits on congressional control over execution of the laws)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing: injury‑in‑fact, traceability, redressability)