Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Drone Advisory Comm.

Summary

The district court held that the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) does not provide a private right of action, dismissing direct FACA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also dismissed APA open-meeting claims for lack of standing because the plaintiff did not allege it sought to attend the unannounced subcommittee meetings, and dismissed all claims against the Drone Advisory Committee itself as it is not an "agency" under the APA. However, the court allowed APA public-records claims against the FAA to proceed regarding records of the parent DAC, finding that subcommittees and task groups that report to a parent advisory committee and do not provide direct advice to the agency are not themselves "advisory committees" subject to FACA's disclosure requirements. Key topics include FACA's scope, subcommittee transparency obligations, informational standing, and the absence of an implied private right of action under FACA.

Holdings

1. FACA does not provide a private right of action.
2. The DJA does not provide an independent source of federal jurisdiction or a private right of action.
3. EPIC lacks standing because it did not allege that it sought to attend the closed meetings.
4. The DAC is not an agency because an entity cannot be both an advisory committee and an agency.
5. The DACSC and DAC task groups are not advisory committees because they report to the DAC and do not directly advise the FAA.
6. EPIC sufficiently pled its APA claims for failure to release DAC records.

Questions Presented

1. Whether FACA provides a private right of action
2. Whether the Declaratory Judgment Act provides an independent cause of action
3. Whether EPIC has standing to bring APA open meeting claims
4. Whether the DAC is an agency subject to APA review
5. Whether the DACSC and DAC task groups are advisory committees under FACA
6. Whether EPIC stated a claim for APA claims regarding DAC records

Disposition

other