Advocates v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
| Decision Date | 19 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No.18-cv-02137-JSC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | MUSLIM ADVOCATES, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants. |
Plaintiff Muslim Advocates sues Defendants the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") (collectively, "Defendants") under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq, for violation of the Information Quality Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3516 ("IQA"). (Dkt. No. 37.)1 Now before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint ("FAC") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, pursuant to Rule 12(b)6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.2 (Dkt. No. 40.) After careful consideration of the parties' briefing, and having had the benefit of oral argument on June 20, 2019, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion because Plaintiff's claim premised on alleged violations of the IQA is not subject to judicial review under the APA.
//
//
//
The IQA "was included as a brief note to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000)," (codified at 44 U.S.C. 3516 note (Paperwork Reduction Act Guidelines)). Harkonen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 800 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 2015). The statute directs the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") to "'issue guidelines . . . that provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies in fulfillment of the purposes and provisions of . . . the Paperwork Reduction Act.'" Id. (quoting 44 U.S.C. 3516 note). The IQA's focus "is on the quality of information shared by federal agencies, and on ensuring broad access to information." Id. at 1148.
The IQA directs that the content of OMB's guidelines shall:
44 U.S.C. 3516 note. The IQA does not expressly provide for judicial review of information disseminated by Federal agencies, or otherwise provide a private right of action.
OMB issued its final guidelines pursuant to the IQA in February 22, 2002. See Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies, 67 Fed. Reg. 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). The guidelines set forth four central duties that agencies must undertake: (1) "adopt a basic standard of quality (including objectivity, utility, and integrity)" that is "to be ensured and established at levels appropriate to the nature and timeliness of the information . . . disseminated," as well as specific quality standards "for the various categories of information"; (2) develop a quality review process to ensure the "objectivity, utility, and integrity[ ] of information before it is disseminated"; (3) "establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain, where appropriate, timely correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with OMB or agency guidelines," as well as "an administrative appeal process" for "requests for reconsideration" of agency decisions; and (4) submit to OMB a report detailing the agency's information quality guidelines and thereafter submit a yearly report regarding any complaints the agency receives related to its compliance with OMB's Guidelines. 67 Fed. Reg. at 8458-59.
//
//
DOJ issued its guidelines ("DOJ Guidelines") in October 2002 in response to OMB's directive. See U.S. Dep't of Justice, DOJ Information Quality Guidelines, https://www.justice.gov/information-quality. The DOJ Guidelines track the language of the OMB Guidelines, stating, in pertinent part that they "will adhere to the basic standards cited in the final OMB Guidelines and focus on the following areas": (1) "adopt[ing] a basic standard of quality (including objectivity, utility, and integrity); (2) develop[ing] a process for reviewing the quality . . . of information before it is disseminated; and (3) establish[ing] administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons (individual or entity that may use, benefit, or be harmed by the disseminated information at issue) to seek and obtain, where appropriate, timely correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with OMB or agency guidelines." Id.
The DOJ Guidelines specify that those requesting correction of information "bear the 'burden of proof' with respect to the necessity for correction as well as with respect to the type of correction they seek." Id. DOJ will review such requests, and "[a]fter it has completed its review, DOJ will determine whether a correction is warranted, and, if so, what corrective action it will take." Id. Further:
Any corrective action will be determined by the nature and timeliness of the information involved and such factors as the significance of the error on the use of the information and the magnitude of the error. DOJ is not required to change, or in any way alter, the content or status of information simply based on the receipt of a request for correction.
Id. The DOJ Guidelines provide that the agency "will normally respond to requests for correction of information within 60 calendar days of receipt," and "will inform the requester that more time is required" if necessary. Id. If a petitioner disagrees with the agency's determination, it can file a request for reconsideration; DOJ will respond to such requests "within 45 calendar days of receipt." Id.
As to their scope, the DOJ Guidelines expressly state:
The DHS guidelines ("DHS Guidelines") became effective on March 18, 2011. See U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, Information Quality Guidelines 1 (2011), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/dhs-iq-guidelines-fy2011.pdf. The DHS Guidelines track the DOJ Guidelines in that they "adhere to the basic standards cited in the OMB guidelines and focus on the [same basic] areas."4 Id. at 2. The DHS Guidelines further track the DOJ Guidelines regarding requests for correction; specifically, they provide that: (1) the burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate that the information does not comply with the DHS or OMB Guidelines; (2) DHS Components "should respond to requests for correction" within 60 days of receipt, and notify the petitioner if the request "requires an extended period of time for processing"; and (3) DHS components "should develop an administrative appeals process" regarding requests for correction and respond to such appeals within 60 days. Id. at 6, 8. Further:
In making determinations of whether or not to correct information, [DHS] Components may reject claims made in bad faith or without justification. [DHS] Components need undertake only the degree of correction that they conclude is appropriate for the nature and timeliness of the information involved and explain such practices in their annual fiscal year reports to DHS.
Id. at 6. Also like the DOJ Guidelines, the DHS Guidelines expressly limit their enforceability:
On March 6, 2017, the President of the United States signed Executive Order No. 13780, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 6, 2017). The order "temporarily restricted the entry (with case-by-case waivers) of foreign nationals from six countries"—Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—"because each 'is a state sponsor of terrorism, has been significantly compromised by terrorist organizations, or contains active conflict zones.'" Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2404 (2018) (quoting Exec. Order No. 13780, § 1(d), 82 Fed. Reg. at 13210). Section 11 of the order directed "the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General," to "collect and make publicly available the following information" for purposes of public transparency:
To continue reading
Request your trial