UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT


JUDICIAL WATCH INC

v.

FEC


98-5355a

D.C. Cir. 1999


*	*	*


J U D G M E N T


This cause came to be heard on appeal from an opinion and  judgment of
the United States District Court for the District  of Columbia and was
briefed and argued by counsel. The  issues have been accorded full
consideration by the Court,  and occasion no need for a published
opinion. See D.C. Cir.  R. 36(b).


It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that, for the reasons  indicated in the
attached memorandum opinion, the decision  of the District Court is
reversed and the matter is dismissed  for lack of standing.


The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate  herein until
seven days after disposition of any timely petition  for rehearing or
petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.  App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir.
R. 41.


Per Curiam


FOR THE COURT:


Mark J. Langer


Clerk


M E M O R A N D U M


Judicial review in this case is predicated on the Federal  Election
Campaign Act ("FECA"), which permits any party  aggrieved by the
Federal Election Commission's ("FEC" or  "Commission") dismissal of,
or failure to act on, a complaint  filed by that party to seek review
in district court. See 2  U.S.C. s 437g(a)(8)(A). Judicial Watch's
standing to sue  therefore must be based upon an injury stemming from
the  FEC's dismissal of Judicial Watch's administrative complaint. 
That complaint, filed in August 1996, alleged that various  parties
affiliated with the Clinton Administration sold seats  on foreign
trade missions in exchange for large campaign  contributions. Judicial
Watch now contends that the com- plaint must be read to allege FECA
reporting violations, such  that the FEC's dismissal of the complaint
deprived Judicial  Watch and its members of information to which they


In Common Cause v. FEC, 108 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 1997),  we recognized
the availability of standing under a theory of  informational injury,
but emphasized that the relevant analy- sis must turn on the nature of
the information allegedly  denied. See 108 F.3d at 417. If an
organization has simply  been "deprived of the knowledge as to whether
a violation of  the law has occurred," that "injury" is no more than a
 generalized "interest in enforcement of the law," and does not 
support standing. Id. at 418. Where the plaintiff's complaint  only
nominally alleged a reporting violation, we concluded  that what the
plaintiff desired was "for the Commission to  'get the bad guys,'
rather than disclose information," id., and  we found no standing to


Here, Judicial Watch has not even made a nominal allega- tion of
reporting violations. Nowhere in its administrative or  civil
complaint did Judicial Watch mention disclosure require- ments or
suggest that it desired documents that the alleged  violators were
required to disclose. Thus, under this circuit's  precedent, there is
no doubt that Judicial Watch lacks stand- ing to bring this action. If
Judicial Watch has a viable claim  of reporting violations, the
organization remains free to file a  new complaint with the FEC


The FEC also argues that, even if Judicial Watch has  standing, the
District Court's sua sponte grant of summary  judgment for Judicial
Watch on the merits was improper,  where the only issue before the
court at the time of its ruling  was the agency's jurisdictional
challenge, and the agency had  not yet answered Judicial Watch's
complaint. The Commis- sion's position appears to be indisputably
correct. Cf. Single- ton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120-21 (1976)
(holding that it was  improper for court to resolve merits where
petitioner, in  answering respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of
stand- ing, had not yet filed answer or other pleading as to merits, 
and had not yet had opportunity to present evidence or legal 
arguments supporting its position). However, in light of our 
dismissal of this case for want of standing, the District  Court's
judgment on the merits has been eradicated. Thus,  this second issue