In Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. United States of America, No. 22-3326 (8th Cir. Mar. 1, 2024), the Eighth Circuit affirms dismissal of an action for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that there was no “adversity” between the parties, owing to the supposed failure of plaintiff to name a defendant in the case.
“The Reporters Committee filed an application in the District of Minnesota
with a single goal in mind: unsealing electronic-surveillance filings. See 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2701–13 (Stored Communications Act). But standing in the way was a local rule
requiring federal law-enforcement officials to file them under seal. See D. Minn.
LR 49.1(c)(1)(B).” The Reporters Committee, after extended negotations with the district court and U.S. Attorney’s Office, were unable to reach acceptable terms and filed an application with the court directing changes in the Clerk of the Court’s procedures. The district court dismissed on the ground that the “Reporters Committee lacked standing because all it had was a ‘generalized, abstract interest’ in unsealing the records.”
The Eighth Circuit affirms. It holds that there was no Article III jurisdiction for lack of adversity. The plaintiff critically failed to name an official or office that could provide the relief they sought, such as ther Clerk of the Court. “The Reporters Committee filed an ‘application’ with the district court, but it did not name anyone or anything as a defendant. It did not sue the United States Attorney for the electronic-surveillance materials in his possession, nor did it argue that he had an obligation to disclose them. It is true that, at one point, the district court changed the caption to read ‘Reporters Committee . . . v. United States of America,’ but the United States never officially intervened. And when the Reporters Committee finally amended its application, it did not mention or seek relief against the United States or the United States Attorney.” While the panel observes that sometimes adversity may be created by amici representing parties to the litigation, even absent an actual conflict between the principal parties, that was not the case here.
“Without a defendant in this case, it is not clear what role the United States
played . . . . Did it represent its own interests? Or was it advocating on behalf of someone else, like the clerk of court or the district court? Perhaps all three? It is hard to know because the Reporters Committee requested relief without suing anyone who could provide it. It brought an action without adversity, typically required for ‘federal-court adjudication.’”
The panel alternatively holds that “the Reporters Committee failed to establish that it suffered a ‘concrete’ and ‘particularized’ injury” sufficient for standing. “[W]ithout ‘concrete
plans’ to review or use the materials, its injury is no different than every other member of the public.”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 