Smith v. United States of America, 237 F. Supp. 3d 8

Background

Grant F. Smith, a pro se public-interest researcher, sued the United States, President Obama, and several cabinet officials alleging violations of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. § 2799aa-1), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Take Care Clause, and Executive Order 13526 related to classification policy.
Smith contends the executive branch unlawfully withheld enforcement of § 2799aa-1 to allow U.S. aid to a country (Israel) that allegedly engaged in proscribed nuclear-related conduct, and that agencies (CIA, DoD, Treasury, Energy, Commerce) have obstructed disclosure of information about Israel’s nuclear program.
Procedurally: defendants moved to dismiss in full; Smith also sought a preliminary injunction. The government argued lack of standing, failure to state claims, non-justiciability (political question), and that FOIA provides the exclusive route for many complaints about information withholding.
The district court evaluated standing under Article III and justiciability doctrines, applied liberal construction for pro se filings but required non-speculative factual allegations sufficient to state a claim.
The court found Smith lacked standing: his alleged injuries were generalized (taxpayer/informational) or FOIA litigation costs that were not redressable by the relief sought, and therefore the claims were not justiciable.
Result: defendants’ motion to dismiss granted; Smith’s preliminary injunction denied as moot.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge alleged failure to enforce § 2799aa-1 (Arms Export Control Act)	Smith claims he and other Americans suffer concrete injuries from the government’s non-enforcement and resulting secrecy, including FOIA litigation costs and impeded research	Defendants argue Smith lacks particularized, redressable injury; taxpayer status and FOIA costs do not confer Article III standing	Held: No standing — injuries are generalized or unrelated to relief; claim dismissed
Ability to sue President under APA / Mandamus / Take Care Clause	Smith seeks mandamus and APA relief compelling the President to enforce § 2799aa-1 and to obey the Take Care Clause	Defendants contend there is no cause of action against the President under APA or Mandamus for these matters and the claims present non-justiciable political questions	Held: Court did not reach all merits because of lack of standing; asserted legal bases do not render case justiciable
Challenge to Executive Order 13526 and classification policy	Smith argues classification policy unlawfully blocks access to information and thus harms his research and imposes FOIA costs	Defendants argue no separate APA cause of action for the EO; FOIA provides the proper remedy; lack of standing and ripeness	Held: Relief via APA unavailable where FOIA provides adequate remedy; no standing for EO claim
Broader justiciability / political question concerns	Smith seeks court intervention in foreign-aid and national-security related decisions	Defendants claim these matters implicate executive discretion and foreign policy and are non-justiciable or discretionary relief should be withheld	Held: Court dismissed on standing grounds and did not reach political question analysis; justiciability lacking

Key Cases Cited

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized, and redressable injury)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (injury must be particularized and concrete)
Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587 (taxpayer standing generally unavailable)
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (narrow exception for taxpayer standing under Establishment Clause)
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (standing principles and requirements)
Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (standing requires concrete and particularized injury)
Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26 (taxpayer injuries and redressability limits)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must state a claim plausibly above speculative level)
American Nat’l Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 642 F.3d 1137 (Rule 12(b)(1) standards and liberal construction of pleadings)