How does that work? What gives them special standing to sue? I doubt that just anybody can do it.
One example: the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is suing the Justice Department “accusing it of failing to provide legal opinions, communications and other documents related to the president’s decision to declare a national emergency” (WaPo). I presume they had to cross some hurdles to get the right to sue? How does that work?
Thanks.
In the case of the the suit in question it is a freedom of information act lawsuit, I believe , anybody could file one assuming they’ve made a proper and unfulfilled freedom of information act request and they have the will and money
First of all, they just filed the lawsuit last Friday. I don’t think any court has yet ruled on whether they have standing. That will probably come early in the process.
Here is a copy of the lawsuit.
They are specifically asking for relief under the Freedom of Information Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act. They claim in the lawsuit that the FOIA requires the Justice Department to release the requested records to them within 20 days of their request and that the agency’s decision not to release the records is subject to judicial review under 5 USC Sec 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
I see. Freedom of Information is one way to go.
But there are other ways (besides suing as a US state) apparently.
The article I linked to mentions “Public Citizen and the Center for Biological Diversity fil(ing) separate lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that Trump’s emergency declaration is unconstitutional”.
So, anyone can make a Constitutional claim (if they have the bucks, and smarts)?
I believe so. Of course before it’s even heard it may well be thrown out.
Here’s one you might find interesting
Another way is class action, which is just getting a bunch of people to sign on as part of it.
I believe that was the method when a guy tried to sue general motors for something like 66trillion for the pollution of all 50 states.
As was said, you can file a suit. That’s a citizen’s way of redressing grievance. However, the suit doesn’t go forward until a judge determines if the plaintiff has the standing to pursue said suit. It is a by permission only proposition. We wouldn’t want everyone to be willy nilly suing left and right on just any whim, now would we? When would the judges get to take fishing vacations? I mean, having a guaranteed lifetime position with a guaranteed salary (a somewhat significant salary) doesn’t mean the guy is going to actually work all day, does it??? :eek:
Moderator Note
Pithily Effusive, professional jabs are not permitted in General Questions. This kind of comment doesn’t contribute to factually answering the question in the OP. Do not do this again.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Standing has nothing to do with “permission.” You may be confusing lack of standing with sovereign immunity.
Standing looks at whether the plaintiff/complainant has some sort of particular nexus to the wrongful government action, or a “particularized injury.” In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a conservation group sued the U.S. government (or technically the Secretary of the Interior) to challenge a proposed administrative rule limiting enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. SCOTUS overturned a ruling against the government on the grounds that DOW could not show that any of its members sustained a particularized injury. They all wanted to protect animals, but anyone could want to protect animals.
For another example, let’s look at a piece of legislation like the Americans With Disabilities Act. Since providing access to the disabled is important, there are two mechanisms for enforcement. The first is that government agencies can inspect businesses and other covered entities and order them to provide wheelchair ramps and accommodations for the blind and deaf and so on. The other is that private citizens can sue under the ADA to get courts to enforce the act, even against state and local governments. However, a private citizen can’t just call up a courthouse across the country, ask if they have accessible facilities, and then sue if they say no. The individual must show that (s)he has been injured. In the case of the ADA, the injury requirement isn’t a very high bar; it’s enough for the person to say they wanted to observe proceedings in the courtroom but can’t (compare* Lujan*, where DOW members wanting to visit wildlife habitats at some point in the future wasn’t enough to establish standing).
The Freedom of Information Act (and its state analogues) is essentially sui generis because the text of the act effectively grants standing to any citizen; the idea is that transparency in government is so important that we should let any citizen enforce it. Essentially, everyone has standing under the FOIA because Congress says so.
Another unique standing analysis is for violations of the Establishment Clause. Generally speaking, citizens do not have standing as taxpayers to challenge appropriations or other government spending. That’s what the electoral system is for. I couldn’t sue the federal government for wasting trillions on the F-35, even if all parties agreed that the F-35 was nothing but a pork barrel project with no real intention of enhancing national defense.* I couldn’t even sue the government as a taxpayer for enforcing a law that violates a constitutional provision, unless it has actually been enforced against me. However, I *could *sue the government for spending money on an unconstitutional establishment of religion; say, for offering grants to parochial schools.
Thank you Really for such a really well-written and so very informative answer.
AFAIK, a lot of these organizations suing also involve finding a good front man (or woman) who in fact has been directly injured by the actions of the government. the government for example, denies - let’s make up a wild-ass hypothetical - VA medical coverage to convicted felons. Find someone who has been denied coverage, a felon and ex-SEAL who has suffered because of that (i.e. is out of pocket their medical expenses, or lost a limb, so directly affected). “They” sue, but the organization is arranging and paying for the lawyers.
This is a fairly common tactic. The more sympathetic the victim and the case, the better for publicity and the more likely the judgement will go their way (they hope). Also better if the issues are clear-cut.
That’s a bit different. In those cases, the “front man” (to use your term) is the named plaintiff. The citizen’s group may be assisting or even originating the litigation but they are not a party as such.
My pleasure!
I presume to sue for FOIA you would have to ask for some document and be denied, which is a pretty obvious indication the failure to abide by the law has directly affected you? Or is the fact that such document was denied to someone else already sufficient grounds for standing?
I don’t think it was denied so much as just failed to be provided.
I think it will depend if
They filled out the forms and asked for the documents properly and specifically and whatever else is required of a foia request.
Are the documents requested actually subject to FOIA
Have they waited the normal amount of time required for requests to be fulfilled.
In GQ we typically frown on answering questions based on what we think. Standing is entirely separate from the merits of a case, and merely looks at whether the plaintiff is the proper person to be filing suit.
In FOIA cases, all that is required to establish standing is for the plaintiff to show that a request was made, and that the agency denied the request or the plaintiff did not receive a response within the time frame permitted by statute. See, for example, Wadhwa v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 342 Fed. Appx. 860 (3d Cir. 2009). Whether the request was “properly and specifically made” or whether “the documents requested [are] actually subject to FOIA” are issues that go to the merits of the case.
Perhaps (IANAL) a lawyer can elaborate with mor specificity, but as I recall, standing means the person/group suing must have sustained some more direct and specific impact that the effect that every general citizen feels. I.e. - Every citizen suffers in the long run if freedom of speech is curtailed - but to sue over a 1st amendment violation, the government has to have specifically limited some form of free speech you were attempting to pursue. In the Endangered Species example, the whole world loses if a species goes extinct, and a wildlife group is more particularly concerned about it - but if none of their members can demonstrate how say, the disappearance of the spotted owl would cause them a specific injury, then they don’t get standing to sue for owl protection. The less specific the “loss” the harder to argue for standing. Certainly if you have no more loss than any other random citizen, it’s pretty much impossible to claim you have the right to sue for redress.