968 F. Supp. 2d 243
D.D.C.2013Background
- EPIC and four individuals sue the Department of Education to challenge FERPA-implementing Final Rule (2011).
- Court sua sponte considers subject-matter jurisdiction; Rule grants/expands directory information and authorized representative definitions.
- Plaintiffs claim increased risk to privacy and identity harm from new disclosures to unregulated third parties.
- Plaintiffs argue EPIC has organizational/associational standing; individuals have standing based on potential harms.
- Court finds no injury in fact, no causation, and no redressability; dismisses for lack of standing.
- Conclusion: grant Def.’s motion to dismiss; cross-motions denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do individuals have standing to sue? | Barber, Molina, Neumann, Peel have injury in fact. | Plaintiffs fail to show concrete, imminent harm causally linked to Rule. | No standing; injury-in-fact not established. |
| Does EPIC have associational standing? | Members would have standing to sue; EPIC represents them. | No individual member with standing; issues unresolved. | Associational standing denied. |
| Does EPIC have organizational standing? | Rule harms EPIC's activities; diverts resources; injury in fact. | Advocacy impact does not constitute cognizable injury; resources redirected are not injury. | Organizational standing denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Public Citizen, Inc. v. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 489 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (increased risk of harm requires substantial imminent risk)
- Pisciotta v. Old National Bancorp, 499 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2007) (credible threat of future harm can support standing)
- Krottner v. Starbucks Corp., 628 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2010) (credible threat of real and immediate harm from data loss)
- Center for Law and Education v. Department of Education, 396 F.3d 1152 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (association's injury must be more than pure issue-advocacy)
- National Taxpayers Union v. United States, 68 F.3d 1428 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (diversion of resources to litigation isn't injury in fact)