Bellocchio v. Garland

Background

John Bellocchio sued Merrick Garland, the Attorney General of the United States, in Garland’s official capacity. Bellocchio challenged the National Organ Transplant Act provision that makes it unlawful to knowingly acquire, receive, or transfer a human organ for valuable consideration for use in transplantation when the transfer affects interstate commerce. Violations can result in a fine, imprisonment, or both.

Bellocchio alleged that the ban violated his freedom of contract and right to privacy under the United States Constitution. He alleged that financial difficulties led him to consider selling his organs and that he learned through research and a call to a medical center that he could donate organs but could not legally sell them. He sought to have the ban declared unconstitutional and to prevent Garland from prosecuting him or others under it.

Motion to dismiss

Garland moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue, and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court first considered the jurisdictional argument because a federal court must have authority to decide a case before it can address other issues.

Standing analysis

The court treated the Rule 12(b)(1) motion as a facial challenge, meaning it evaluated whether the complaint itself alleged facts establishing jurisdiction. To establish standing, Bellocchio had to show an injury that was concrete and actual or imminent, that the injury was connected to the challenged law, and that a favorable decision would likely remedy it.

Because Bellocchio sought prospective relief against a criminal law, he also had to show a credible threat of prosecution. The court found that he failed to allege either required element. The complaint did not show a concrete intention to buy or sell human organs. Bellocchio did not identify a potential buyer or allege that he had taken steps to prepare for a transaction. His statements that he had become interested in selling organs and was shocked to learn that it was illegal were insufficient. The court also found no credible threat of prosecution because Bellocchio did not allege that anyone had threatened him, that prosecution was likely, or facts about the law’s enforcement history.

The court therefore held that Bellocchio lacked standing and that the case had to be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court expressly did not reach the merits of his constitutional claims. It also did not decide Garland’s arguments concerning venue or failure to state a claim, and it did not decide whether transfer to the District of New Jersey was appropriate.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court denied Bellocchio leave to amend. He had not amended his complaint after the court previously allowed him to do so, had not requested leave to amend in his motion papers, and had not identified additional facts that would establish a concrete intention to violate the ban or otherwise cure the standing problem.

The court granted Garland’s motion to dismiss. Bellocchio’s claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions, adjourn the remaining dates, and close the case.