Kawa Orthodontics, LLP v. Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 773 F.3d 243

Kawa Orthodontics, a firm subject to the ACA "employer mandate," spent time and money in 2013 preparing to comply with the mandate scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2014.
On July 2, 2013, the Treasury announced a one-year transition delay (later extended for some employers) postponing enforcement of the employer mandate.
Kawa sued Treasury under the APA seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to set aside the delay; it did not seek monetary damages.
The district court dismissed for lack of Article III standing; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed standing de novo on appeal.
The majority held Kawa lacked standing because Kawa alleged only speculative, subjective loss (value of time/resources), failed to show the loss was fairly traceable to Treasury’s delay, and the requested non-monetary relief could not redress the asserted monetary loss.
A dissent argued Kawa alleged a cognizable monetary injury (lost time value/interest on funds spent early), that the injury was traceable to the delay, and that injunction would stop continuing daily accrual of lost interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Injury-in-fact (concreteness)	Kawa: lost value of time/resources spent in 2013 preparing for mandate (would have delayed spending).	Treasury: alleged harm is speculative and subjective; information and expenditures still useful in future.	No standing — alleged loss is too abstract/indefinite.
Causation (traceability)	Kawa: delay caused loss of two years' time value on money spent early.	Treasury: expenditures were driven by the ACA itself, not Treasury's timing decision.	No standing — asserted injury not fairly traceable to Treasury's delay.
Redressability	Kawa: injunction restoring original effective date would halt ongoing loss of interest going forward.	Treasury: only monetary relief could compensate lost interest/value; declaratory/junctive relief cannot restore past expenditures.	No standing — requested relief would not redress claimed monetary loss.
Jurisdictional consequence	Kawa: merits should be reached if standing shown.	Treasury: without standing court lacks jurisdiction and should affirm dismissal.	Dismissal affirmed for lack of Article III standing; merits not reached.

Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000) (standing is jurisdictional and must be addressed first)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (three-part Article III standing test: injury, causation, redressability)
McCullum v. Orlando Reg'l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 768 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 2014) (standards for redressability and standing application)
GrassRoots Recycling Network, Inc. v. E.P.A., 429 F.3d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (alleged subjective diminution in value insufficient for injury)
Habitat Educ. Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 607 F.3d 453 (7th Cir. 2010) (time value of money can constitute cognizable injury where funds are withheld)
DiMaio v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 520 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff lacked standing where complaint did not show how judgment would redress alleged injury)
United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669 (1973) (small monetary harms can suffice for standing)