Fourth Circuit Denies Appeal Under IQA Finding No Standing

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is the first federal appellate court to deal with a case based on the Information Quality Act ("IQA").  Salt Institute v. Leavitt, 440 F.3d 156 (4th Cir. March 6, 2006).  Under the IQA, congress directed the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") to develop guidelines that direct the federal agencies to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity of the information that they disseminate.  44 U.S.C. § 3516.  In 2003, the Salt Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an IQA petition with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (“NHLBI”).  The petition sought the correction of information in a report disseminated by the NHLBI that suggested that reducing salt intake would result in lower blood pressure in all people.  The NHLBI denied the petition and the subsequent administrative appeal.

Therefore, in 2004, the Salt Institute and U.S. Chamber (Plaintiffs) filed suit in federal court in Virginia.  The District Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that they could not obtain judicial review under either the IQA or the Administrative Procedures Act.  The Plaintiffs appealed that decision.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed only the issue of standing and agreed with the District Court.  In their complaint, Plaintiffs only alleged that they “suffered a legal wrong and [were] adversely affected and aggrieved by” the NHLBI’s actions.  However, the Plaintiffs did not provide information on how they were aggrieved.  In addressing the “injury in fact” requirement for standing, the Fourth Circuit explained that a plaintiff may be injured when it is denied a legal right that is created by statute.  It found that the IQA did not provide the plaintiffs with any legal right to access information or to its correctness.  Instead, according to the Court, the IQA simply orders the OMB to “draft guidelines concerning information quality and specifies what those guidelines should contain.”

Because of the meager allegation of injury in the complaint and brief, the Court could not look beyond the Plaintiffs’ allegation that they were denied a statutory right.  If the plaintiffs had alleged, for example, that their members financial interests will suffer because less people would purchase salt based on the NHLBI report, then the Court may have been required to conduct a more rigorous standing analysis.

The plaintiffs do not plan to file a petition for certiorari in this case.  For the complete decision, please click on the following link:  http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/051097.P.pdf

  [ return to top ]