959 F.3d 1061
11th Cir.2020Background:
- In 2017 U.S. Senators Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson created the Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission to identify and recommend candidates for federal judicial vacancies in Florida.
- The Commission consisted of volunteer members chosen by the Senators; its process (applications, public comment, interviews, rules) was controlled and amendable solely by the Senators.
- The Commission lapsed in January 2019. In February 2019 Joshua Statton (a watchdog group officer) sent a FOIA request to Carlos Lopez-Cantera, the Commission’s former statewide chair, seeking a judge’s application and supporting materials.
- Lopez-Cantera refused to produce the records; Statton sued under FOIA. Lopez-Cantera moved to dismiss, arguing the Commission is not a FOIA "agency." Statton argued the Commission exercised executive power and relied on tests used in Meyer.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding neither the Commission nor Lopez-Cantera was an FOIA agency; Statton appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit agreed the Commission is not a FOIA agency but held the proper disposition is dismissal for failure to state a claim (not lack of jurisdiction) and affirmed judgment for defendants.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission is an "agency" under FOIA | The Commission performs executive functions related to judicial nominations and is subject to FOIA (formed at behest of President/Article II nexus) | The Commission was created and controlled by two Senators, not by statute or the Executive Branch; it lacks federal agency status | Not an agency; FOIA does not apply to the Commission |
| Whether Lopez-Cantera is individually subject to FOIA | Statton sought records from Lopez-Cantera as former chair | A private individual cannot be sued under FOIA; only the Commission could potentially be subject | Lopez-Cantera not personally subject; only relevant if Commission were an agency |
| Whether Meyer test governs here | Meyer should apply to treat the body as an agency based on operational closeness to Executive | Meyer addresses Executive Office entities; the Commission is not in Executive Branch so Meyer is inapplicable | Meyer inapplicable; Commission not an Executive Branch entity |
| Whether dismissal should be jurisdictional or on the merits | Statton argued district court's sua sponte jurisdictional ruling denied due process | Court treated the issue as merits: absence of an agency means no FOIA claim; jurisdiction to hear case existed | Dismissal on grounds of failure to state a claim is proper; court had jurisdiction to decide the merits |
Key Cases Cited:
- Sikes v. U.S. Dep't of Navy, 896 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2018) (distinguishing jurisdictional dismissal from failure-to-state-claim dismissal in FOIA context)
- Meyer v. Bush, 981 F.2d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (test for when executive advisory bodies count as agencies)
- Armstrong v. Exec. Office of the President, 90 F.3d 553 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (explaining Meyer scope: applies to presidential advisers/executive supervisors)
- Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (1980) (clarifying FOIA's remedial-jurisdiction framework)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (jurisdictional/remedial distinction principles)
- U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (1989) (district court lacks power to devise FOIA remedies unless statutory prerequisites met)
- Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley, 694 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2012) (appellate affirmation may rest on any record-supported ground)
- Alley v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 590 F.3d 1195 (11th Cir. 2009) (discussing prerequisites for injunctions under § 552(a)(4)(B))