Opinion ID: 805657
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standing to Pursue Advisory Committee Claim

Text: We reject KG's challenge as to the advisory committee on standing grounds. KG's complaint does not plead any facts as to -27- why it has standing to challenge the committee's composition. Its sole argument is that Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (per curiam), holds that an individual subject to the jurisdiction of a regulatory agency may challenge the legality of appointments to that body. Buckley was not so broad; rather it held that [p]arty litigants with sufficient concrete interests at stake may have standing to raise constitutional questions of separation of powers with respect to an agency designated to adjudicate their rights. Id. at 117 (emphasis added). KG bears the burden and does not develop any argument that it has sufficently concrete interests at stake as to the advisory committee, or that Buckley applies to committees that are solely advisory. The contours of Buckley's standing analysis are not well-defined, and at least one circuit has held that Buckley does not confer standing on plaintiffs who are not directly subject to the governmental authority they seek to challenge, but merely assert that they are substantially affected by the exercise of that authority. Comm. for Monetary Reform v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 766 F.2d 538, 543 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The dismissal of this claim for lack of standing is affirmed. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992).