Summary
The D.C. Circuit held that Cato Institute lacked standing to challenge the SEC's policy of including "no-deny" provisions in consent decrees, because the alleged injury—inability to publish speech from SEC defendants bound by such provisions—was not redressable. Even if the SEC were enjoined from enforcing the provisions, the courts that issued the consent decrees could independently enforce them. The court did not reach the First Amendment merits, affirming dismissal on redressability grounds. Key topics: standing, redressability, consent decrees, no-deny provisions, SEC, First Amendment.
Holdings
- Cato's alleged injury is not redressable because even if the SEC is enjoined, the courts that issued the consent decrees can still enforce the no-deny provisions, and Cato disclaims seeking an order controlling those courts. Therefore, Cato lacks standing.
Questions Presented
- Whether Cato's alleged injury is redressable such that Cato has standing to sue.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (23)
- United States v. ITT Cont'l Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223, 235 (1975)
- SEC v. Clifton, 700 F.2d 744, 748 (D.C. Cir. 1983)
- Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 499 (1969)
- United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. v. Reagan, 738 F.2d 1375, 1378 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
- Renal Physicians Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 489 F.3d 1267, 1273 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
- Am. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 642 F.3d 1137, 1139 (D.C. Cir. 2011)
- Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, 968 F.3d 755, 762 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (en banc)
- Davis v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 554 U.S. 724, 734 (2008)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016)
Showing top 10 of 23.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…