Protecting Democracy Groups’ Right to Hold the Government Accountable (CREW, et al. v. Office of Management and Budget, et al.)

In the Consolidated Appropriations Acts of 2022 and 2023, Congress required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to post an online database of information about how federal agencies were spending money appropriated by Congress — also known as “apportionment” — so that the public had transparency into how the government used taxpayer’s money.

After years of compliance, OMB reversed course under the Trump administration, taking down the database and telling Congress that it would no longer adhere to the statutory disclosure requirements. Two democracy groups sued, and a federal district court held that OMB’s actions were unlawful. The courts ordered OMB to again comply with these disclosure requirements.

OMB appealed this decision to the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the transparency requirements encroached on the powers of the executive branch, and challenging the “standing” of the democracy groups to even bring this lawsuit forward. Standing is the legal rule that limits who can challenge a law to those individuals and groups who can show that the law impacts them in a personal and particular way. Because standing  functions as an “admission ticket” to the courts, it is a crucial prerequisite for litigation by democracy groups that seek to hold federal agencies and officeholders accountable on behalf of voters.  

Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus brief to explain why it was important that the D.C. Circuit continue to recognize that organizations like CREW and CLC have “informational standing” to challenge the government’s failure to comply with transparency requirements and to disclose statutorily required information to the public.

What’s at Stake?

OMB is asking the D.C. Circuit to abandon decades of precedent on standing and adopt a constitutional theory that would close the courthouse door to those who seek to ensure that the government operates transparently and according to rule of law.  

As CLC’s brief points out, OMB’s arguments would have impacts far beyond this case. OMB’s position would jeopardize a wide range of public interest litigation — from cases seeking to ensure that candidates and political committee disclose their donors, to lawsuits that compel agencies to make information about environmental pollution and related harms available to the public. The “informational standing” cases that OMB seeks to overturn are critical precedents that ensure that the public can obtain the information necessary to monitor agency action; hold agencies accountable for unlawful or arbitrary decision-making; and guard against political corruption and abuse of office.