Case Detail
Case Title | Statton v. Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission et al | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | Middle District of Florida | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Tampa | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 8:2019cv00485 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2019-02-25 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2019-04-22 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | Joshua Statton | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Joshua Statton, director of Florida for Transparency, submitted a FOIA request to the Florida Federal Judiciary Nominating Committee for records concerning the application of Judge Thomas Barber for a vacancy on the Middle District of Florida. Carlos Lopez-Cantera, chair of the committee, told Statton that the records were not subject to FOIA. After hearing nothing further from Lopez-Cantera, Statton filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | Carlos Lopez-Cantera | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Opinion/Order [12] Opinion/Order [19] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in Florida has ruled that the Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission, created by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and then-Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) to provide input on federal judicial nominations, is not an agency for purposes of FOIA. Joshua Statton requested records from the Commission and when it failed to respond, he filed suit against the Commission and its director, Carlos Lopez-Cantera. The Commission argued from the beginning that it did not meet the statutory criteria to be considered an agency for purposes of the FOIA. The court agreed, noting that "the FFJNC was created by two Senators to assist them with their duties, but 'the fact that federal interests are implicated by the activities of the [FFJNC] does not transform [it] into a federal entity [as defined by] the APA.' Nor does the fact that the Senators created the FFJNC and appointed its members mean it is an authority of the federal government. Relatedly, the FFJNC was formed by the Senators on their own initiative; it was not established �" or even authorized �" by statute." Statton argued that the FFJNC was an agency because "it is an extension or an establishment in the executive branch. Statton contends that the FFJNC assists the President with his constitutional duty to nominate federal judges under the Appointments Clause." Rejecting Statton's claim, the court pointed out that "despite Statton's contention that the FFJNC assists the President, the FFNJC in fact assists the Senators who created it."
Issues: Agency - Federal | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|