342 F. Supp. 3d 481
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Plaintiffs Panjiva, Inc. and ImportGenius sued CBP and Treasury under FOIA, the APA, and the Tariff Act, seeking disclosure of aircraft cargo manifest data and related procedures/regulations.
- Plaintiffs submitted FOIA requests for aircraft manifests; CBP denied one request as imposing an unreasonable burden and had not finalized the other.
- Counts I–V alleged FOIA violations (with a pattern-or-practice claim); Counts V and VIII also advanced APA theories; Counts VI–VII alleged violations of the Tariff Act (and Treasury’s duty to promulgate implementing regulations) based on the Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) amendments.
- Defendants moved to dismiss: (1) the Tariff Act-based claims (Counts VI–VII) for failure to state a claim, arguing §1431(c)(1) covers vessel manifests only; and (2) APA claims duplicative of FOIA (Counts V and VIII) for lack of an adequate alternative remedy.
- The Court concluded the statutory text and legislative history are ambiguous but, applying surplusage canon and history, construed §1431(c)(1) to require disclosure of vessel manifests only and dismissed Counts VI–VII.
- The Court also held FOIA provides an adequate, special remedial scheme for the alleged FOIA procedural violations, so APA claims that merely duplicate FOIA relief were dismissed (Counts VIII dismissed; Count V dismissed in part).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 19 U.S.C. §1431(c)(1) requires public disclosure of aircraft manifests | ACPA and current U.S. Code show Congress extended disclosure to "vessel or aircraft" manifests; aircraft references in the statute must be given effect | A October 1996 Corrections Act amended the operative clause to refer to a "vessel manifest," effectively limiting disclosure to vessels only; the Statutes at Large control when codification is inconsistent | Court held §1431(c)(1) covers vessel manifests only; Counts VI–VII dismissed |
| Whether the U.S. Code or Statutes at Large govern interpretation where codification departs from enacted amendments | Code text is prima facie evidence, but where codification conflicts with Statutes at Large, the Statutes at Large govern | Statutes at Large govern; codification here is inconsistent with the two 1996 enactments, so the Court looks to the Statutes at Large and history | Court relied on Statutes at Large and legislative history to resolve ambiguity |
| Proper application of the surplusage canon to the 1996 amendments | The presence of "aircraft" in codified text (and in subsections) requires giving effect to aircraft-manifest disclosure | The Corrections Act must be given effect; reading to preserve aircraft-manifest disclosure would render the Corrections Act superfluous | Court applied canon against surplusage and concluded giving effect to the Corrections Act (limiting disclosure to vessels) better avoids significant surplusage |
| Whether APA claims duplicative of FOIA are barred because FOIA provides an adequate remedy | APA claims serve as alternative if FOIA were inadequate; plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief not limited to FOIA's remedies | FOIA (and its equitable powers) is a special and adequate remedy; APA review is precluded where a statute provides adequate judicial review | Court dismissed APA claims to the extent they duplicate FOIA relief (Count VIII dismissed; Count V dismissed in part) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility and treating legal conclusions separately)
- United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (canon against surplusage and tolerating some surplusage)
- Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91 (interpretive principle favoring effect to all provisions)
- Husky Int’l Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz, 136 S. Ct. 1581 (presumption that amendments have real effect)
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (APA review should not duplicate special statutory review)
- U.S. Nat. Bank of Oregon v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439 (Statutes at Large provide legal evidence of laws)