article: On February 8, 2017, three organizations—Public Citizen, Inc., Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Communications Workers of America—filed this lawsuit against the United States of America, President Donald Trump, and 14 federal agencies, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case was assigned to Judge Randolph D. Moss. One week prior, on January 30, President Trump had signed Executive Order 13771.The order instructed federal agencies to rescind at least two existing regulations for every new regulation issued, and to ensure that the costs of new regulations were offset by the rescinded regulations. All regulations promulgated during fiscal year 2017 were required to have net costs of $0, regardless of benefits. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that Executive Order 13771 violated the Take Care Clause, exceeded Article II presidential power, and infringed on legislative authority, and was therefore invalid. They sought a declaration that the agencies could not lawfully implement or comply with the order, and sought an injunction preventing them from complying with the order. They argued that the order’s requirements would harm the people of the United States, and that the decision-making process required by this order was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. On April 21, 2017 the plaintiffs amended their complaint. The government filed a motion to dismiss on May 12, and on May 15 the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. On February 26, 2018 the court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, denying the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. 297 F. Supp. 3d 6. It found that the plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of establishing standing to sue: they had failed to allege that the order would “substantially increase the risk” of harm to any of their members. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint two months later on April 20, 2018. On June 4, California and Oregon intervened as plaintiffs, arguing that they had “unique interests in the health and well-being of their citizens, natural resources, infrastructure, institutions, and economies” which could not be adequately represented by the non-governmental plaintiffs in the case. The following year, on February 8, 2019, the court denied the government’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint: the plaintiffs had demonstrated standing to sue, sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. 361 F. Supp. 3d 60. However, the court simultaneously denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment: they had “done enough to stay afloat but not enough to move forward.” Because there was still doubt as to standing, and therefore as to the court’s jurisdiction, the court denied the states’ motion to intervene as premature, indicating that they could renew their motion if the court ultimately found it had jurisdiction. But on December 20, 2019 the court granted the government’s summary judgment motion, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately establish standing. It found that although the court had previously “provided Plaintiffs with three opportunities to meet this burden and, most recently, allowed Plaintiffs to take focused discovery in aid of establishing jurisdiction,” the plaintiffs had still “failed to carry their burden.” 435 F. Supp. 3d 144. The plaintiffs did not appeal the court’s decision; the case is now closed.
summary: The plaintiffs in this case sought declaratory and injunctive relief with regard to President Trump’s Executive Order 13771 (on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs). This case was filed on February 8, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On December 20, 2019, the court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately establish standing. The plaintiffs did not appeal; the case is now closed.