Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump, 032020 FED2, 18-474

Docket Nº:18-474
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Inc., Jill Phaneuf, and Eric Goode, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Attorney:DEEPAK GUPTA, Gupta Wessler PLLC, Washington, D.C. (Jonathan E. Taylor, Joshua Matz, and Daniel Townsend, Gupta Wessler PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Joseph M. Sellers, Daniel A. Small, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Norman L. Eisen, Stuart C. McPhail, Adam J. Rappaport, Citizens...
Judge Panel:Before: JOHN M. WALKER, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:March 20, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Inc., Jill Phaneuf, and Eric Goode, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-474

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

March 20, 2020

Argued: October 30, 2018

DEEPAK GUPTA, Gupta Wessler PLLC, Washington, D.C. (Jonathan E. Taylor, Joshua Matz, and Daniel Townsend, Gupta Wessler PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Joseph M. Sellers, Daniel A. Small, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Norman L. Eisen, Stuart C. McPhail, Adam J. Rappaport, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Washington, D.C.; Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

HASHIM M. MOOPPAN, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., (Chad A. Readler, Michael S. Raab, Megan Barbero, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: JOHN M. WALKER, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges. 1

PER CURIAM:

It is hereby ORDERED that the chapter of the panel opinion of September 13, 2019 captioned "Zone of Interests" is amended by deleting the passage from its fourth paragraph (beginning "The district court's analysis erred on the merits . . .") to the end of the chapter. The chapter is further amended in the first and second paragraphs so that they are consistent with the above deletion, and at the end of the chapter by addition of a footnote acknowledging and explaining the deletion. The chapter in amended form shall read as follows:

ii. Zone of Interests

The district court also erred in its reliance on the zone of interests test as a basis for finding lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has recently clarified that the zone of interests test is not a test of subject matter jurisdiction. In Lexmark Int'l Inc. v. Static Control Components, the Supreme Court, while acknowledging that past decisions had characterized the zone of interests test as part of a "'prudential' branch of standing," reconsidered the question and clarified both that the "prudential" label is...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP