311 F. Supp. 3d 22
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Paul J. Manafort Jr., indicted in two Special Counsel prosecutions, filed a civil suit under the APA seeking to invalidate part of the Rosenstein Appointment Order (paragraph (b)(ii)) and to enjoin future actions by Special Counsel Mueller.
- Manafort originally sought relief that could affect pending indictments but expressly withdrew any request to dismiss existing indictments in the civil case and abandoned Count II.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the civil suit improperly seeks to interfere with pending criminal proceedings and that APA review is precluded because an adequate alternative (criminal motions) exists.
- Manafort has filed parallel pretrial motions in his criminal cases challenging the Special Counsel’s authority on the same grounds.
- The court found (1) equitable principles and D.C. Circuit precedent bar a civil action that seeks to restrain or preempt federal criminal prosecution, (2) the APA requires lack of an adequate alternative remedy and Rule 12 criminal motions provide an adequate remedy, and (3) the narrowed, prospective-only relief raised standing/ripeness problems.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prospective civil APA suit may enjoin future Special Counsel actions tied to an ongoing federal criminal investigation | Manafort: he may seek prospective relief invalidating paragraph (b)(ii) of the Appointment Order to prevent future ultra vires prosecutions | DOJ: prospective equitable relief improperly interferes with ongoing prosecution; criminal rules provide the proper forum | Dismissed — civil suit is improper vehicle; equitable principles and D.C. Circuit precedent bar interference with ongoing federal prosecutions |
| Whether APA review is available when the plaintiff has alternative remedies | Manafort: APA is appropriate because criminal rules do not provide prospective relief against perpetual ultra vires authority | DOJ: APA §704 bars review where an adequate alternative remedy exists; Rule 12 motions are adequate | Dismissed — APA claim precluded because Rule 12 criminal process provides an adequate remedy of the same genre |
| Justiciability: standing for speculative future harms from Special Counsel actions | Manafort: faces ongoing investigatory harms (searches, subpoenas, possible indictments) that justify pre-enforcement relief | DOJ: alleged future harms are speculative; injury not certainly impending; prudential ripeness lacking | Dismissed — plaintiff lacks a certainly impending injury; claim not ripe for prospective relief |
| Whether the Declaratory Judgment Act alone supplies jurisdiction for Count II (withdrawn) | Manafort initially sought declaratory relief that indictments exceeded authority | DOJ: Declaratory Judgment Act does not create independent jurisdiction; Count II fails | Count II abandoned; court noted Declaratory Judgment Act cannot supply independent federal jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Deaver v. Seymour, 822 F.2d 66 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (federal defendants may not use ancillary civil suits to enjoin pending federal prosecutions; criminal rules provide adequate forum)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (equitable relief to restrain prosecution is disfavored absent extraordinary circumstances)
- Juluke v. Hodel, 811 F.2d 1553 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (distinguishing pre-enforcement facial challenges from attempts to restrain pending prosecutions)
- CREW v. DOJ, 846 F.3d 1235 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (APA §704 review precluded where Congress provided an adequate alternative remedy)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized, and imminent injury)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (future injury must be certainly impending to confer standing)