361 F. Supp. 3d 60
D.C. Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (Public Citizen, NRDC, CWA) challenge Executive Order 13771 and OMB guidance as exceeding presidential authority and unlawfully constraining agency rulemaking; they sued federal officers and agencies.
- EO 13771 instituted a "two-for-one" repeal requirement, an offset requirement, and annual caps on agencies' net regulatory costs; OMB issued guidance clarifying scope, banking of offsets, and that costs (not benefits) drive the cap.
- Plaintiffs alleged numerous agency rulemakings were delayed, withdrawn, or moved to "long-term actions" in the Unified Agenda because of EO 13771; notable examples include NHTSA's V2V proposed rule, DOT airline baggage-fee rule, OSHA workplace-violence initiatives, and DOE efficiency standards.
- In an earlier decision the court dismissed for lack of Article III standing (Pub. Citizen I); Plaintiffs amended and submitted declarations, then sought partial summary judgment on standing; defendants renewed a Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal.
- The court finds Plaintiffs now plausibly allege associational standing at the pleading stage (enough to survive a facial Rule 12(b)(1) challenge), principally based on purchaser-standing allegations tied to the V2V proposed rule, but Plaintiffs fail to carry the heavier summary-judgment burden of proving standing beyond genuine factual dispute.
- Because jurisdiction remains unresolved, the court denies State intervenors' motion as premature and orders further fact development (status conference) rather than deciding merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs plausibly allege Article III standing (facial challenge) | EO 13771 delayed/blocked specific rules (e.g., V2V), injuring members; purchaser standing for members who want V2V-equipped cars | Plaintiffs' allegations fail to show causation, redressability, or a concrete/injurious effect; prior administrative statements show routine review, not EO-driven delay | Court: Plaintiffs plausibly alleged standing at the pleading stage; DENIED Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal |
| Whether Plaintiffs proved standing as a matter of law on summary judgment | Declarations and regulatory history show EO caused delays and concrete injuries (purchaser standing, lost opportunity to buy desired products) | Defendants point to evidence creating genuine disputes (agency statements, alternative causes, availability of some V2V vehicles) | Court: Plaintiffs did not meet the summary-judgment standard; genuine disputes preclude granting partial summary judgment |
| Purchaser-standing re: NHTSA V2V rule (causation and redressability) | Two members intend to buy new cars and are deprived of interoperable V2V vehicles because EO has delayed the rule; invalidation would likely permit the rule to proceed | Some manufacturers already offer limited V2V; DOT/NHTSA statements and review process may explain delay independent of EO; redressability not assured | Court: At pleading stage purchaser standing plausible; but on summary judgment causation/redressability remain disputed, so summary relief denied |
| Intervention by California & Oregon | States seek to intervene to protect state interests | Defendants oppose; jurisdictional uncertainty undermines intervention | Court: Judicial notice granted; motion to intervene DENIED without prejudice as premature pending resolution of Article III standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing elements and burden across litigation stages)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (no standing based on speculative future injuries/chill)
- Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (associational standing test)
- Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Trump, 297 F. Supp. 3d 6 (D.D.C.) (earlier, dismissing complaint for lack of standing)
- Consumer Federation of America v. FCC, 348 F.3d 1009 (D.C. Cir.) (purchaser-standing where agency action foreclosed desired choice)
- Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs v. Sebelius, 671 F.3d 1275 (D.C. Cir.) (purchaser-standing requires that the desired product not be readily available)
- Competitive Enterprise Institute v. NHTSA, 901 F.2d 107 (D.C. Cir.) (lost opportunity to purchase vehicles of choice is cognizable injury)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (threshold requirement that jurisdiction be established before merits)