Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 738 F.Supp.3d 1

The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore submitted a broad FOIA request to the ATF seeking records on firearm trace data to identify sources of guns recovered from crimes in Baltimore from 2018-2022.
ATF withheld the requested records, invoking FOIA Exemption 3 (records prohibited from disclosure by statute).
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), representing firearm dealers, moved to intervene in the resulting litigation to assert additional FOIA exemptions and protect member interests.
The district court previously denied NSSF’s motion to intervene, citing lack of both Article III standing and statutory standing.
NSSF renewed its motion, filing declarations under seal to show harm to specific members.
The Court once again denied intervention, finding NSSF had not established the required standing on any theory but allowed redacted declarations to be filed under seal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can NSSF intervene as a right in the FOIA litigation?	NSSF lacks Article III and statutory standing to intervene.	NSSF’s unnamed members face concrete harm if data is disclosed.	NSSF lacks both statutory and Article III standing to intervene as of right.
Can NSSF intervene to assert FOIA Exemptions not raised by ATF?	Only the agency can assert discretionary FOIA exemptions.	NSSF should be allowed to argue Exemptions 4, 6, 7(C).	Private parties cannot intervene to raise exemptions the agency has not asserted.
Has NSSF shown injury-in-fact for its members?	NSSF cannot identify a member facing imminent harm.	Harm is likely to at least one member if FFLs are disclosed.	NSSF’s alleged harm is too speculative to establish standing for any individual member.
Is permissive intervention available for NSSF?	Standing is required; NSSF does not meet it.	NSSF’s participation as a party is justified.	Court declines permissive intervention, as NSSF’s lack of standing forecloses relief.

Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. EPA, 642 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (organizational associational standing rules applied in intervention context)
Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) (reverse FOIA actions when disclosure is barred by another statute)
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) (articulates requirements for associational standing)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete and imminent injury)
Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (1976) (causation and redressability requirements for standing)
Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986) (intervenor must independently meet Article III standing to continue suit)