Larry E. Klayman v. President of the United States of America
689 F. App'x 921
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Larry Klayman sued to challenge two Obama-era executive actions: (1) an ATF guidance allegedly broadening the statutory definition of a firearms "dealer," and (2) an SSA announcement that it would begin rulemaking to report certain disability recipients to NICS.
- Klayman claimed the ATF Guidance would criminalize ordinary firearm transactions by treating casual sellers as dealers, and the SSA Announcement would lead to more people being barred from gun purchases.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of Article III standing.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit reviewed standing de novo and considered whether Klayman pleaded a concrete, particularized, and imminent injury traceable to the challenged actions that a favorable ruling could redress.
- The court found Klayman alleged no past injury and no substantial risk of future harm: he did not claim repetitive, profit-motivated firearm sales (so as to fall within the dealer definition) and did not allege he had a disqualifying mental condition or was receiving SSA disability benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge ATF Guidance | Klayman said the Guidance broadened "dealer" definition and could criminalize his firearm transactions | Guidance merely described enforcement of existing statutes; Klayman lacks concrete plans or repetitive sales to trigger dealer status | No standing — no past injury and no substantial risk of future harm alleged |
| Standing to challenge SSA Announcement | Klayman argued SSA rulemaking could lead to more people being reported to NICS, potentially including him | Announcement only began rulemaking; Klayman did not allege he has a disqualifying mental condition or receives SSA disability benefits | No standing — hypothetical future rulemaking and speculative injury insufficient |
| Causation / traceability | Klayman asserted the executive actions caused risk of legal prohibition/enforcement against him | Defendants argued any risk stems from preexisting federal law, not the mere guidance/announcement | No traceable injury tied to the challenged actions themselves |
| Redressability | Klayman argued invalidating the actions would prevent future enforcement against him | Defendants argued relief would not redress speculative or nonimminent harms | No redressable injury shown; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- DiMaio v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 520 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff bears burden to plead standing at pleading stage)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing requires injury fairly traceable to defendant and redressable by relief)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (2014) (a threatened injury can satisfy standing if substantially certain to occur)
- Hollywood Mobile Estates, Ltd. v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 641 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2011) (injury-in-fact requires invasion of a legally protected interest)
- S & Davis Int’l., Inc. v. Yemen, 218 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2000) (court will not speculate to create standing)
- Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Fla. State Athletic Comm’n, 226 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2000) (de novo review of standing dismissal)
- Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2001) (appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record)