369 F. Supp. 3d 27
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- The FAA created the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC) under the RTCA in 2016 to advise on integrating drones into the National Airspace; the DAC held public meetings but a DAC Subcommittee (DACSC) and three task groups met without public notice.
- EPIC requested DAC and subgroup records under FACA on March 20, 2018; received no response and sued April 11, 2018 asserting FACA, APA, and Declaratory Judgment Act claims alleging secret meetings and withheld records.
- EPIC sued the FAA, DOT, the DAC, RTCA (later voluntarily dismissed), and certain officials; Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
- The court concluded FACA does not create a private right of action and dismissed EPIC’s direct FACA claims and the separate declaratory-judgment count.
- The court held EPIC lacked Article III standing for its APA open-meetings claims because the complaint did not allege EPIC sought to attend subgroup meetings before they occurred, and dismissed those counts.
- The court found the DACSC and task groups were not advisory committees under FACA (they were staff/subordinate bodies reporting to the DAC), but denied dismissal of EPIC’s APA records claims as to the DAC itself, finding EPIC plausibly alleged the DAC withheld records and that factual development is needed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FACA provides a private right of action | FACA creates enforceable public-rights to advisory committee meetings and records | No private right exists under FACA; courts post-Sandoval reject implied causes of action | Court: No private right under FACA; FACA claims dismissed |
| Whether EPIC may obtain declaratory relief as independent claim | EPIC: DJA claim valid alongside other claims | DJA provides no independent cause of action; depends on underlying judicially remediable right | Court: DJA count dismissed as separate claim; relief may be sought in prayer for relief |
| Standing for APA open-meetings claims (DACSC/task groups) | EPIC: informational standing; inability to attend secret subgroup meetings suffices | No standing because EPIC never sought/was denied permission to attend subgroup meetings | Court: EPIC lacks standing (no allegation it sought to attend); open-meetings counts dismissed |
| Whether DACSC/task groups are advisory committees (records disclosure) | EPIC: subgroups are part of DAC or functioned to advise FAA directly, so FACA applies | Defendants: subgroups provided staff work to DAC and did not advise FAA directly; thus not covered by FACA | Court: DACSC and task groups are not advisory committees under FACA; their records need not be disclosed |
| Whether DAC is an "agency" subject to APA claims | EPIC named DAC as defendant for APA relief | Defendants: an advisory committee is not an agency under APA | Court: DAC is not an agency; claims against DAC dismissed except APA records claim (government-wide entity claims survive against agencies) |
| Whether EPIC plausibly alleged DAC withheld records required by FACA | EPIC: requested records, received no response; alleges specific documents withheld | Defendants: many records public; some identified items may be preparatory/administrative and exempt | Court: EPIC adequately pled a records-withholding claim as to DAC; counts alleging failure to release DAC records survive dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (presumption that federal courts have limited jurisdiction)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing requirements)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (courts may not create private rights of action absent congressional intent)
- Public Citizen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (informational injury: denial of statutorily required disclosure is injury)
- Friends of Animals v. Jewell, 828 F.3d 989 (informational standing doctrine in D.C. Circuit)
- Byrd v. EPA, 174 F.3d 239 (FACA records requests can confer standing)
- National Anti-Hunger Coalition v. Executive Committee, 557 F. Supp. 524 (task forces/subordinate groups not subject to FACA when serving staff functions)
- Ass'n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons v. Clinton, 997 F.2d 898 (distinguishing when subordinate groups constitute advisory bodies)