Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity
878 F.3d 371
D.C. Cir.2017Background
- In May 2017 the President created the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (a temporary, "solely advisory" body) to study federal election vulnerabilities.
- Vice Chair Kris Kobach requested publicly-available state voter-roll data (names, addresses, DOBs, partial SSNs, voting history, etc.); states were told submitted documents would be made public, though Kobach said the Commission intended to de-identify data.
- EPIC sued the Commission and multiple officials under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging violations of the E-Government Act § 208 (failure to prepare a privacy impact assessment (PIA)) and seeking a preliminary injunction to halt data collection until a PIA was produced.
- The district court denied the preliminary injunction, finding EPIC had standing but was unlikely to succeed on the merits because the Commission was not an "agency" under the APA.
- On interlocutory appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief, but on different grounds: EPIC failed to show a substantial likelihood of Article III standing for either claim.
- The court did not reach whether the Commission or other defendants qualify as an "agency" under the APA or E-Government Act because EPIC lacked standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to compel production of a PIA (Count Two) | EPIC says it suffers informational injury (denied statutorily-required PIA) and organizational injury (mission impaired; resources spent) | Defendants argue EPIC lacks Article III injury: §208 protects individual privacy, not EPIC; expenditures are speculative/self-inflicted | EPIC lacks standing: informational harm is not the type §208 seeks to prevent (it protects individuals), and organizational expenditures are not traceable/redressable by court order |
| Standing to enjoin collection of voter data (Count One) | EPIC seeks injunction halting data collection to protect privacy and to secure the PIA information it claims it needs | Defendants argue EPIC is not a voter/member and thus lacks particularized injury; enjoining collection would not likely redress EPIC's asserted informational/organizational harms | EPIC lacks standing for injunction: it is neither the sort of individual §208 protects nor has it shown that halting collection would redress its asserted informational/organizational injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
- FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (denial of statutorily-mandated information can be an Article III injury)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (organizational standing requirements)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (Congressional judgment important to whether intangible harm is injury in fact)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (speculative future injuries insufficient for standing)
- Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905 (plaintiff must show substantial likelihood of standing to obtain preliminary injunction)