Washington v. U.S. Dep't of State, 318 F. Supp. 3d 1247

Background

Defense Distributed posted CAD files for 3D‑printed firearms; DDTC (State Dept.) determined some files were technical data subject to ITAR and instructed removal or CJ determination.
Defense Distributed sued in W.D. Tex.; parties later settled and the State Dept. agreed to a temporary modification of Category I of the USML and a letter authorizing immediate internet publication of the CAD files (July 27, 2018).
Eight states and D.C. filed suit under the APA and Tenth Amendment three days later, seeking to enjoin the temporary modification and letter; a TRO was entered and extended pending a preliminary‑injunction hearing.
Plaintiffs argued the temporary modification removed one or more "items" from the USML without the 30‑day notice to Congressional committees required by 22 U.S.C. § 2778(f)(1), failed required interagency concurrence, and was arbitrary and capricious.
The court found plaintiffs had standing, likely success on the APA claim that notice was required and not given, likelihood of irreparable harm from publication (public‑safety and law‑enforcement harms), and that the balance of hardships/public interest favored an injunction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the temporary modification removing CAD files from the USML required 30‑day Congressional notice	The modification removed one or more "items" from the USML and therefore triggered § 2778(f)(1)'s 30‑day notice requirement	The notice rule applies only to removal of an entire category, not particular items; no notice was required for this action	Court: Likely for plaintiffs — removing previously‑regulated items triggered the 30‑day notice requirement and notice was not given
Standing to sue under Article III / APA	States alleged sovereign/proprietary and procedural‑injury harms that could be redressed by agency reconsideration	Defendants argued harms were domestic and unrelated to export authority, so no causation	Court: States have standing; procedural injury could prompt reconsideration and redress
Whether the agency action was arbitrary and capricious	Dept. reversed prior determinations but failed to explain consideration of unique risks of 3D plastic/undetectable guns or address prior findings	Defendants say multi‑year review found small arms up to .50 cal need not remain on USML and offered a policy rationale	Court: Plaintiffs raised serious questions; record shows no reasoned explanation addressing prior findings or unique risks, supporting APA challenge
First Amendment defense by private parties (publication of CAD files)	Private parties claim CAD files are protected speech and prior restraint principles heavily weigh against injunction	Federal defendants emphasize statutory export/regulatory framework and public‑safety interests	Court: Declined to resolve complex First Amendment question on present record; assumed a First Amendment interest but held States' harms and public interest outweighed the publication interest for preliminary relief

Key Cases Cited

Short v. Brown, 893 F.3d 671 (9th Cir.) (preliminary injunction standard discussion)
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S.) (standard for preliminary injunction requires likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
Feldman v. Ariz. Sec. of State's Office, 843 F.3d 366 (9th Cir.) (serious questions alternative test for preliminary injunction)
Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir.) (application of intermediate preliminary‑injunction standard)
Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep't of State, 838 F.3d 451 (5th Cir.) (upholding national‑security interest in export controls over CAD files)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S.) (Article III standing elements)
Mass. v. Envtl. Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (U.S.) (procedural‑rights standing for States under APA)
Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (U.S.) (reviewability and § 701(a)(2) discretion doctrine)
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (U.S.) (First Amendment: loss of speech rights can be irreparable injury)
GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir.) (definition of status quo for injunctions)
Tuan Thai v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 790 (9th Cir.) (agency regulation cannot authorize what statute prohibits)
Batalla Vidal v. Duke, 295 F.Supp.3d 127 (E.D.N.Y.) (procedural review of agency rulemaking is permissible)