Teton Historic Aviation Foundation v. United States Department of Defense
917 F. Supp. 2d 129
D.D.C.2013Background
- Teton sues the United States alleging DRMS’s review and classification of surplus aircraft parts, denying release under a contract with Government Liquidation (GL).
- GL is a private, non-governmental entity and not a party to this APA action; Teton’s contract rights allegedly derive from GL’s sale terms with the Government.
- In 2008 GL auctioned parts from five A-4 aircraft; DRMS reviewed Teton’s requested parts and assigned Demil codes, determining salability and eligibility for release.
- A later November 2008 policy prohibited sale of Demil B and Q items; DRMS had to re-scrub the listing to remove such items, leaving about 30 salable categories.
- Teton bid $8,250, deposited $50,000, and submitted a parts list; GL sent the list to DRMS for final approval, which never materialized as GL canceled the sale in April 2009 and refunded the deposit.
- Five aircraft were later destroyed; a consent TRO/injunction protected certain aircraft pending resolution, but the court did not order sale of parts or restoration of GL’s contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Teton's claims have Article III standing? | Teton has an injury in fact—loss of ability to obtain parts under the GL contract. | Redress requires third-party GL; relief here cannot redress injury absent GL’s action. | Lacks standing; redress requires third-party action unlikely to occur. |
| Is redressability satisfied when relief hinges on a third party's cooperation? | Relief could enable future purchases if GL honors obligations. | GL’s cancellation and destruction of aircraft make redress unlikely. | Not redressable; relief cannot ensure redress without GL action. |
| Does the possibility of future sales from other aircraft establish standing? | Teton could reacquire parts from other A-4 aircraft if the Court rules in its favor. | There is no evidence that the Government must or will offer such aircraft for sale. | No likelihood of future sale is shown; standing rejected. |
| Is standing saved by arguments that GL is effectively controlled by the Government? | GL’s decisions are controlled by the Government, so redressability is plausible. | Evidence shows GL is an independent contractor; no control shown. | Premise rejected; standing not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- US Ecology, Inc. v. United States DOI, 231 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (redressability depends on third-party cooperation)
- Miami Building & Construction Trades Council v. Sec’y of Def., 493 F.3d 201 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (redressability uncertain when party has already acted)
- Abigail Alliance for Better Access v. Eschenbach, 469 F.3d 129 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (pecuniary interest insufficient without likely enforcement)
- CC Distributors, Inc. v. United States, 883 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (standing to challenge future contracting depends on likelihood of contract)
- West Virginia Ass'n of Community Health Centers, Inc. v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 1571 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (standing requires concrete, imminent injury with redressable relief)
- City of Waukesha v. EPA, 320 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (standing requires redressability and causation linking to challenged action)
- DamilerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (S. Ct. 2006) (constitutional standing prerequisites and redressability)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (S. Ct. 1992) (three-part standing test)