Mary Ferrell Foundation, Inc. v. Biden

Background

The Mary Ferrell Foundation, Inc., Josiah Thompson, and Gary Aguilar sued President Joseph R. Biden and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an order compelling government action. They alleged that NARA failed to perform duties under the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Act).

The Third Amended Complaint asserted three claims against NARA: an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim challenging NARA’s actions as arbitrary and capricious; an APA and mandamus claim seeking to compel specified agency actions; and a Federal Records Act (FRA) claim concerning NARA’s handling and recovery of assassination records. The plaintiffs also filed three motions for preliminary injunctions concerning President Biden’s postponement memoranda, additional searches and collection of assassination records, and public disclosure of legislative records.

Motion to dismiss

The court granted the motion to dismiss as to Claim 1, the APA arbitrary-and-capricious claim. The court held that the JFK Act gave the President substantial discretion under Section 5(g)(2)(D) to postpone disclosure after the statutory 25-year deadline. It also held that NARA’s recommendations to the President were not final agency action reviewable under the APA. The court dismissed this claim without further leave to amend.

The court granted the motion to dismiss as to Claim 2, except for the portions concerning NARA’s maintenance of identification aids and release of legislative records. Those portions survived. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the JFK Act required NARA to release individual names under standards in Section 6, complete outstanding searches, or conduct periodic reviews under Section 9(d) for records postponed under the President’s separate Section 5(g)(2)(D) authority. The court stated that the JFK Act did not impose on NARA a command to conduct the asserted searches and that NARA and the former Assassination Records Review Board were distinct entities.

The court denied the motion to dismiss as to Claim 3, except for the portions concerning “missing” records and NARA’s duty to complete outstanding record searches. The court rejected defendants’ standing argument concerning destroyed records because defendants had not shown that the records were permanently unrecoverable. But it held that the plaintiffs could not use the FRA to compel NARA to pursue missing records or outstanding searches where the statute imposed no independent obligation to conduct those searches.

Preliminary injunctions

The court denied all three motions for preliminary injunction. It denied the motion seeking to set aside President Biden’s memoranda because the plaintiffs could not show a likelihood of success on the merits. It denied the motion seeking additional searches because the plaintiffs could not show a likelihood of success on the underlying claim. It denied the motion seeking disclosure of legislative records because the plaintiffs had not shown irreparable injury. The court also found that defendants’ national-security concerns weighed considerably in favor of defendants in balancing the hardships.

Disposition

The court dismissed President Biden from the case because the plaintiffs had not alleged claims against him, and an earlier order had already dismissed him without leave to amend. The court concluded that further leave to amend was not warranted except for the claims that survived. Judge Richard Seeborg therefore granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs’ various motions for injunctive relief.