Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-08-05366/USCOURTS-caDC-08-05366-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued March 5, 2009 Decided July 24, 2009 

No. 08-5366 

YOUNG AMERICA’S FOUNDATION, 

APPELLANT

v. 

ROBERT M. GATES, 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 1:07-cv-01351-JDB) 

William Perry Pendley argued the cause for appellant. 

With him on the briefs was Elizabeth Gallaway. 

Henry C. Whitaker, Attorney, U.S. Department of 

Justice, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief 

were Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey 

A. Taylor, U.S. Attorney, and Scott R. McIntosh, Attorney. 

Before: GINSBURG, Circuit Judge, and WILLIAMS and 

RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judges. 

USCA Case #08-5366 Document #1197916 Filed: 07/24/2009 Page 1 of 8
2 

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GINSBURG. 

Opinion concurring in the judgment filed by Senior 

Circuit Judge RANDOLPH. 

GINSBURG, Circuit Judge: The Young America’s 

Foundation sued to compel the Secretary of Defense to 

withhold funds from the University of California–Santa Cruz 

because the University allegedly maintains a policy or 

practice that denies military recruiters access to the campus 

equal to the access available to other employers. The district 

court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding both 

that YAF lacks standing and that the Secretary’s decision 

whether to enforce the Solomon Amendment is committed to 

his discretion by law and therefore not reviewable under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). 

Because we agree YAF lacks standing, we affirm the order of 

the district court on that ground alone. 

I. Background 

No federal funds subject to the so-called Solomon 

Amendment may be provided to a college or university 

if the Secretary of Defense determines that that 

institution ... has a policy or practice ... that either 

prohibits, or in effect prevents the Secretary of a 

military department ... from gaining access to 

campuses, or access to students ... for purposes of 

military recruiting in a manner that is at least equal in 

quality and scope to the access to campuses and to 

students that is provided to any other employer. 

10 U.S.C. § 983(b); see id. § 983(d) (monies to be withheld 

include all “funds made available for” use by certain 

USCA Case #08-5366 Document #1197916 Filed: 07/24/2009 Page 2 of 8
3 

departments and agencies, not including funds for student 

financial assistance).* YAF, which is “committed to ensuring 

that young Americans understand and are inspired by ... the 

importance of a strong national defense,” Amended Compl. 

¶ 3, has among its members several students enrolled at 

UCSC, id. ¶ 5. YAF alleges that on five occasions from 2005 

to 2007 students and faculty protesters prevented or disrupted 

military recruiting at UCSC. On two such occasions, 

disruptive protests caused military recruiters to leave an oncampus job fair. On another occasion, protesters blocked 

students’ access to military recruiters at a job fair. As a 

result, on all three occasions one or more student members of 

YAF who wanted to meet with a military recruiter was unable 

to do so. Finally, the threat of protests caused UCSC to 

cancel one job fair and caused some military recruiters to 

withdraw in advance from another. 

YAF informed the Secretary of these incidents at UCSC 

but the Secretary took no action pursuant to the Solomon 

Amendment. YAF eventually filed this suit, seeking a writ of 

mandamus and an injunction ordering the Secretary to 

determine that UCSC is in violation of the Amendment and to 

withhold covered federal funds. 

The district court dismissed the case for lack of 

jurisdiction, holding YAF lacked standing and the Secretary’s 

decision regarding enforcement of the Solomon Amendment 

 

*

 As the Secretary’s delegate, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary 

of Defense for Personnel and Readiness makes the final 

determination that an institution is ineligible for federal funds. 32 

C.F.R. § 216.5(a)(1)(ii). He disseminates that determination to the 

head of any department or agency that administers funds subject to 

the Solomon Amendment, id. § 216.5(a)(1)(iii), and enters the 

institution into the Excluded Parties List System, which is available 

to all Executive Branch agencies, id. § 216.5(a)(5) & n.1. 

USCA Case #08-5366 Document #1197916 Filed: 07/24/2009 Page 3 of 8
4 

was committed to his discretion by law and therefore not 

subject to judicial review under the APA. 560 F. Supp. 2d 39, 

47 (2008). YAF then appealed. 

II. Analysis 

We review de novo a dismissal for lack of standing, 

Renal Physicians Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human 

Servs., 489 F.3d 1267, 1273 (D.C. Cir. 2007), on the 

assumption the allegations of the complaint relevant to 

standing are true, Metro. Wash. Airports Auth. v. Citizens for 

Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 501 U.S. 252, 264 (1991). 

A membership organization has standing to sue if, inter alia, 

“at least one of its members would have standing to sue in his 

own right.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895, 898 (D.C. Cir. 

2002) (citing Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 

U.S. 333, 342-43 (1977)). Because, as we conclude below, 

no member of YAF has standing to sue in his own right, YAF 

lacks standing. 

The “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing 

contains three elements”: (1) injury in fact, (2) causation, and 

(3) redressability. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 

555, 560-61 (1992). YAF asserts its members have been 

injured because they have been deprived of the opportunity to 

meet on the UCSC campus with military recruiters. The 

district court assumed YAF had alleged a sufficient injury, 

but held it had not alleged facts sufficient to show the injury 

(1) was caused by the Secretary’s failure to list UCSC as not 

in compliance with the Solomon Amendment and to withhold 

funds accordingly and (2) would be redressed by an order 

compelling him to do so. 560 F. Supp. 2d. at 50. We agree 

that YAF has not alleged facts sufficient to show its injury 

will be redressed by the relief it seeks. 

USCA Case #08-5366 Document #1197916 Filed: 07/24/2009 Page 4 of 8
5 

YAF’s burden was to allege facts showing it is “likely, as 

opposed to merely speculative, that [its] injury will be 

redressed by a favorable decision.” Defenders of Wildlife, 

504 U.S. at 561 (internal quotation marks omitted). Where 

the plaintiff’s injury “arises from the government’s allegedly 

unlawful regulation (or lack of regulation) of someone else” 

— here, the Secretary’s failure to regulate UCSC — 

redressability turns ultimately upon “choices made by 

independent actors not before the courts.” Id. at 562 

(emphasis omitted); see Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 129 

S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009) (when plaintiff challenges regulation 

of (or failure to regulate) third party, standing “is ordinarily 

substantially more difficult to establish”). 

In arguing the court cannot redress YAF’s injury, the 

Secretary focuses upon the protesters, contending they “are 

most unlikely to abandon their efforts simply because UCSC 

may lose federal funds.” Appellee Br. 17. YAF, in contrast, 

argues the “relevant third party here is UCSC,” Appellant Br. 

18, which it alleges “has given tacit approval” to the protests 

by failing to prevent them, Amended Compl. ¶ 27. 

Regardless upon which third party one puts the emphasis, 

YAF’s task was to allege facts sufficient to show it is likely 

the Secretary’s withholding or threatening to withhold federal 

funds would enable YAF’s members to meet with military 

recruiters at on-campus job fairs. See Renal Physicians 

Ass’n, 489 F.3d at 1275 (at pleading stage plaintiff must 

allege facts showing it is likely “the third party directly 

injuring the plaintiff would cease doing so as a result of the 

relief the plaintiff sought”). This it has not done. 

As the Supreme Court has pointed out, the Solomon 

Amendment leaves the University “a choice: Either allow 

military recruiters the same access to students afforded any 

USCA Case #08-5366 Document #1197916 Filed: 07/24/2009 Page 5 of 8
6 

other recruiter or forgo certain federal funds.” Rumsfeld v. 

Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 

58 (2006). Based solely upon its allegation that UCSC 

received $80 million in federal funds in 2005 and receives 

“tens of millions” every year, Amended Compl. ¶ 9, YAF 

argues it is not speculative what the University would choose 

and “there is ‘little doubt’ that UCSC’s behavior would 

change” if the Secretary invoked the Solomon Amendment 

against it. Appellant Br. 18 (quoting Renal Physicians Ass’n, 

489 F.3d at 1275). Merely showing UCSC's behavior would 

change in some undefined way is not enough, however; YAF 

must allege facts from which we can reasonably infer it is 

likely that the loss or threatened loss of the money would 

motivate the University to act to ensure YAF’s members 

could meet with military recruiters at on-campus job fairs 

unimpeded. 

The Secretary does not claim the University might be 

able to replace such substantial sums. Cf. St John’s United 

Church of Christ v. FAA, 550 F.3d 1168, 1170 (D.C. Cir. 

2008) (holding petitioners had not shown injury was 

redressable because they failed to rebut city’s claim to have 

alternative sources for $1.2 billion in federal funds for airport 

expansion”). We assume, therefore, the University would do 

what it could do to avoid losing the funds. That the 

University has at all relevant times had a written policy of 

providing equal access to military recruiters, see 560 F. Supp. 

2d at 42, also suggests it is motivated to comply with the 

Solomon Amendment. 

Still, YAF has not alleged facts from which we can 

reasonably infer UCSC could do more than it has done 

already to ensure protesters do not impede YAF’s members 

from “access[ing] military recruiters during job fairs on 

campus,” Amended Compl. ¶ 30. As the Secretary points out, 

USCA Case #08-5366 Document #1197916 Filed: 07/24/2009 Page 6 of 8
7 

YAF’s own allegations indicate UCSC is responsive to 

concerns regarding disruptive protests. YAF alleges “UCSC 

canceled a job fair ... due to safety concerns associated with 

UCSC protestors who planned to oppose the presence of 

military recruiters.” Amended Compl. ¶ 24. Canceling a job 

fair presumably equalized students’ access to military and 

non-military recruiters at job fairs, at least for a time (though 

it is not clear that made YAF’s members any better off). 

YAF also put before the district court the statement of a 

UCSC official that the University had followed the “standard 

campus judicial process ... to investigate whether students 

violated the campus code of conduct and to take appropriate 

disciplinary action.” 560 F. Supp. 2d at 51. We agree with 

the district court, therefore: In light of (1) YAF’s allegations 

and its evidence that UCSC has already “taken measures to 

ensure that the protests do not violate student or faculty codes 

of conduct,” and (2) YAF’s failure to “suggest what more 

could be done by UCSC,” id., it is speculative whether an 

order compelling the Secretary to withhold funds from the 

University would redress YAF’s injury. 

III. Conclusion 

In sum, YAF lacks standing because it has not alleged 

facts sufficient to show a ruling in its favor will likely redress 

the injury it claims. The order of the district court dismissing 

this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is therefore 

Affirmed. 

USCA Case #08-5366 Document #1197916 Filed: 07/24/2009 Page 7 of 8
 RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring in the 

judgment: For the reasons stated by Judge Bates, I would 

affirm solely on the ground that the Administrative Procedure 

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2), precludes judicial review of the 

Secretary’s decision whether to enforce the Solomon 

Amendment. See Young America’s Found. v. Gates, 560 F. 

Supp. 2d 39, 43-47 (D.D.C. 2008). 

USCA Case #08-5366 Document #1197916 Filed: 07/24/2009 Page 8 of 8