195 F. Supp. 3d 80
D.D.C.2016Background
- The EAC maintains the National Mail Voter Registration Form (Federal Form) and state-specific instructions; Congress (NVRA) and FEC/HAVA set content and approval rules for the Form.
- Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia requested that the EAC include each state's documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements in their state-specific instructions on the Federal Form; those requests were approved on January 29, 2016 by EAC Executive Director Brian Newby without a three-commissioner vote or notice-and-comment rulemaking.
- Newby treated state-specific instruction changes as ministerial and within his authority to accept for clarity and accuracy; he did not seek commissioners’ formal approval and did not analyze whether the proof-of-citizenship requirements were necessary.
- Plaintiffs (individuals and voter-registration organizations, including state Leagues and Project Vote) sued under the APA seeking to vacate Newby’s approvals and obtain a preliminary injunction requiring reversal of changes on the EAC website and withdrawal of Newby’s letters.
- The Court found the State Leagues (Georgia, Kansas, Alabama) had organizational standing because they showed concrete programmatic harms and resource drains tied to explaining and counteracting the instructions’ effects, but denied the preliminary injunction because plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm and sought overly broad, effectively final relief at the preliminary stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Newby's approvals are final agency action reviewable under the APA | Newby’s letters altered the Federal Form and produced legal consequences, so they are final and reviewable | Newby’s decisions are interpretive or policy statements not subject to APA review | Held reviewable: Newby’s approvals consummated agency decisionmaking and had legal consequences (Form changed; Kansas enforced requirement) |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing | Leagues say they suffer concrete organizational injuries (impeded registration drives; resource drain educating voters) | Intervenors challenge standing, arguing injuries speculative and not traceable | Held in part: State Leagues demonstrated a substantial likelihood of organizational standing |
| Whether plaintiffs showed irreparable harm to justify a preliminary injunction | Plaintiffs claim registration drives will be less effective, resources will be diverted, and eligible voters will be deterred | Defs. (and intervenors) argue harms are speculative, reparable, or would be remedied retroactively if plaintiffs prevail | Held for defendants: plaintiffs failed to show certain, great, and irreparable harm; speculative inconveniences and costs insufficient |
| Whether relief sought was appropriate for preliminary stage (scope of injunction) | Plaintiffs sought to void and vacate Newby’s actions and force immediate reversal of the Form and withdrawal of letters | Defs. argued that such sweeping, final-type relief is inappropriate on a preliminary basis | Held: Relief was overly broad for a preliminary injunction; the Court declined to grant vacatur and sweeping corrective orders at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (Sup. Ct.) (standards for preliminary injunction; irreparable harm requirement)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Sup. Ct.) (Article III standing framework)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (Sup. Ct.) (final agency action test: consummation and legal consequences)
- Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2247 (Sup. Ct.) (EAC/Federal Form state-instruction approval context)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (Sup. Ct.) (organizational standing: concrete diversion of resources)