Lozansky v. Obama
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8962
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- Lozansky and Salvia sue the President seeking a declaratory judgment and mandamus to remove Russia from Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions.
- The President moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), asserting lack of jurisdiction, no waiver of sovereign immunity, and lack of standing; mandamus jurisdiction also challenged.
- Court concludes standing is dispositive and declines to reach sovereign immunity or merits; mandamus analysis follows from standing.
- Statutory framework: Title IV of the Trade Act allows normal trade relations through compliance determinations or waivers under Jackson-Vanik; Congress can overturn determinations, and bilateral agreements are used to extend benefits.
- Russia has been treated under Jackson-Vanik since 1992, with semi-annual congressional reporting and prior waivers/ determinations; the U.S. has engaged in a bilateral agreement with Russia.
- Lozansky alleges injury to his business interests from ongoing trade instability; Salvia does not allege a cognizable injury; the court must assess standing before addressing the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (constitutional and prudential) to sue | Lozansky has concrete, particularized injury; Salvia has injury insufficiently alleged. | Plaintiffs lack injury and redressability; no zone of interests for Lozansky; Salvia lacks injury. | Plaintiffs lack standing; jurisdiction improper; ruling dispositive. |
| Mandamus jurisdiction and redressability | Mandamus available to compel action to graduate Russia from Jackson-Vanik. | No ministerial duty or clear nondiscretionary obligation; Congress action may be required. | Not reached or not viable due to lack of standing; mandamus unavailable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1998) (redressability and actual controversy requirement)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1975) (standing and redressability considerations)
- Swan v. Clinton, 100 F.3d 973 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (mandamus or presidential relief considerations)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (U.S. 1992) (mandamus and presidential action considerations)
- Patchak v. Salazar, 632 F.3d 702 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (zone of interests and prudential standing analysis)
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (prudential standing limitations for trade organizations)
- Glass Packaging Inst. v. Regan, 737 F.2d 1083 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (standing required to show injury traceable to challenged action)
- Mountain States Legal Found. v. Glickman, 92 F.3d 1228 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (zone of interests and procedural standing principles)
- Byrd v. EPA, 174 F.3d 239 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (standing and jurisdictional considerations)