Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-98-05355/USCOURTS-caDC-98-05355-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

---------

Argued April 26, 1999 Decided May 7, 1999

No. 98-5355

Judicial Watch, Inc.,

Appellee

v.

Federal Election Commission,

Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 98cv00386)

---------

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Rogers, Circuit Judge, and

Buckley, Senior Circuit Judge.

J U D G M E N T

This cause came to be heard on appeal from an opinion and

judgment of the United States District Court for the District

of Columbia and was briefed and argued by counsel. The

issues have been accorded full consideration by the Court.

USCA Case #98-5355 Document #434248 Filed: 05/07/1999 Page 1 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that, for the reasons

indicated in the attached memorandum opinion, the decision

of the District Court is reversed and the matter is dismissed

for lack of standing.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate

herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition

for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.

App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R. 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer

Clerk

USCA Case #98-5355 Document #434248 Filed: 05/07/1999 Page 2 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

M E M O R A N D U M

Judicial review in this case is predicated on the Federal

Election Campaign Act ("FECA"), which permits any party

aggrieved by the Federal Election Commission's ("FEC" or

"Commission") dismissal of, or failure to act on, a complaint

filed by that party to seek review in district court. See 2

U.S.C. s 437g(a)(8)(A). Judicial Watch's standing to sue

therefore must be based upon an injury stemming from the

FEC's dismissal of Judicial Watch's administrative complaint.

That complaint, filed in August 1996, alleged that various

parties affiliated with the Clinton Administration sold seats

on foreign trade missions in exchange for large campaign

contributions. Judicial Watch now contends that the complaint must be read to allege FECA reporting violations, such

that the FEC's dismissal of the complaint deprived Judicial

Watch and its members of information to which they are

entitled.

In Common Cause v. FEC, 108 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 1997),

we recognized the availability of standing under a theory of

informational injury, but emphasized that the relevant analysis must turn on the nature of the information allegedly

denied. See 108 F.3d at 417. If an organization has simply

been "deprived of the knowledge as to whether a violation of

the law has occurred," that "injury" is no more than a

generalized "interest in enforcement of the law," and does not

support standing. Id. at 418. Where the plaintiff's complaint

only nominally alleged a reporting violation, we concluded

that what the plaintiff desired was "for the Commission to

'get the bad guys,' rather than disclose information," id., and

we found no standing to sue.

Here, Judicial Watch has not even made a nominal allegation of reporting violations. Nowhere in its administrative or

civil complaint did Judicial Watch mention disclosure requirements or suggest that it desired documents that the alleged

violators were required to disclose. Thus, under this circuit's

precedent, there is no doubt that Judicial Watch lacks standing to bring this action. If Judicial Watch has a viable claim

of reporting violations, the organization remains free to file a

new complaint with the FEC asserting those violations.

USCA Case #98-5355 Document #434248 Filed: 05/07/1999 Page 3 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

The FEC also argues that, even if Judicial Watch has

standing, the District Court's sua sponte grant of summary

judgment for Judicial Watch on the merits was improper,

where the only issue before the court at the time of its ruling

was the agency's jurisdictional challenge, and the agency had

not yet answered Judicial Watch's complaint. The Commission's position appears to be indisputably correct. Cf. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120-21 (1976) (holding that it was

improper for court to resolve merits where petitioner, in

answering respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, had not yet filed answer or other pleading as to merits,

and had not yet had opportunity to present evidence or legal

arguments supporting its position). However, in light of our

dismissal of this case for want of standing, the District

Court's judgment on the merits has been eradicated. Thus,

this second issue raised by the FEC is now moot.

USCA Case #98-5355 Document #434248 Filed: 05/07/1999 Page 4 of 4