Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth v. Raimondo

Citation: Not availableDocket: Civil Action No. 2021-2365

Court: District Court, District of Columbia; August 2, 2022; Federal District Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Eighteen individuals and one organization, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, have filed a lawsuit against Gina M. Raimondo, the Secretary of Commerce, alleging that a government agency misreported the cause of the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) on September 11, 2001. This lawsuit mirrors previous claims dismissed by this Court and the Southern District of New York due to lack of standing. The plaintiffs assert that WTC 7 collapsed not from fire, as concluded by the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) in its 2008 reports, but from a controlled demolition involving pre-placed explosives. The group includes relatives of 9/11 victims, though none directly attribute their loved ones' deaths to WTC 7's collapse, as well as engineers and architects who have studied the events. 

The legal foundation for their claims is based on the Information Quality Act (IQA), enacted in 2001, which mandates federal agencies to ensure the quality and integrity of published information. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established guidelines for compliance, which NIST followed by creating its own procedures for information review and correction requests. However, the plaintiffs' claims are deemed insufficient, as they lack standing, leading the Court to dismiss the case.

Requests for information correction submitted to NIST are directed to the Chief of the relevant unit, who must respond within 120 days. If the requester is unsatisfied with the response, they can appeal to NIST's Associate Director for Laboratory Programs, whose decision is final. Plaintiffs utilized this process in April 2020, seeking a correction of NIST's WTC 7 Report and related FAQs, disputing NIST's conclusion that fires caused the collapse and claiming evidence of explosives' use. Both the Chief and the Associate Director denied their request. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against NIST, its Director, and the Secretary of Commerce for alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and other federal laws. They asserted ten claims, primarily alleging NIST's failure to consider certain evidence and to make accurate scientific judgments, arguing these failures contradicted federal legal standards and NIST's own regulations. The Secretary filed a motion to dismiss, arguing lack of standing under Rule 12(b)(1). Plaintiffs must demonstrate standing by showing (1) a concrete injury, (2) traceability to the defendants' actions, and (3) likelihood of redress by the Court. The Court evaluates the motion by accepting factual allegations as true and considering documents attached to the Complaint. Plaintiffs claim informational standing, asserting they were denied access to information NIST was required to disclose, thus suffering harm. They also claim organizational standing, which requires the same injury, traceability, and redressability criteria. The plaintiffs reference a prior case, Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry v. Wray, where the court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing due to the absence of a mandated disclosure in the relevant appropriations provision.

The Court determined that the plaintiffs, referred to as Architects, lacked organizational standing due to insufficient demonstration of informational injury. The Architects claimed multiple injuries, including a financial interest in a State Department award and costs incurred to counter defamation and to address a Bureau report. However, the Court concluded that these injuries were contingent on an informational harm that was not substantiated by the Architects. Additionally, expenses incurred for litigation and advocacy were deemed insufficient for establishing standing. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed this decision, noting that the appropriations provision did not imply a right to information, and the plaintiffs' theories of standing were inherently linked to the failed claims of informational injury.

In a related case, Architects and individual plaintiffs challenged the U.S. Attorney’s Office for not acting on a petition regarding alleged federal crimes related to 9/11, seeking to compel the presentation of evidence to a grand jury. The court dismissed three claims due to a lack of private right for standing and because their asserted injuries did not satisfy standing requirements. The plaintiffs' arguments, centered on claims of informational injury, were reiterated but found unpersuasive. They argued that relatives of 9/11 victims would achieve emotional closure with more comprehensive information about the events, and that the Architects suffered a specific informational injury due to perceived inaccuracies in a report by NIST.

Despite their claims, the plaintiffs failed to identify any statute mandating the disclosures they sought. They referenced the Information Quality Act (IQA), which does not require disclosure, and thus did not meet the criteria for informational standing. They also cited the National Construction Safety Act (NCST Act), which mandates public reporting following building collapses, but acknowledged that the Act only allows public access to information upon request, subject to restrictions.

The Act protects from disclosure any information exempt under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and allows the NIST Director to withhold information if disclosure could threaten public safety. Plaintiffs argue that NIST violated the NCST Act not by failing to release a report, but by producing a report they claim is unscientific and possibly fraudulent. However, to establish an informational injury, Plaintiffs must demonstrate a lack of information that is mandated for disclosure by the NCST Act. The NCST Act specifically requires disclosure of a report on the technical cause of the collapse, which NIST fulfilled with the release of the WTC 7 Report. This admission indicates that, irrespective of the Report's veracity, NIST has met its disclosure obligations under the statute. Plaintiffs also seek access to additional information that NIST reviewed but did not include in the Report, such as WTC 7 computer models. While the NCST Act allows for public requests for this information, it is contingent on it not being exempt under FOIA, necessitating FOIA requests for access to non-public investigation materials. Since FOIA does not require specific disclosures, it does not support Plaintiffs' claim for informational standing. The NCST Act does not reference any other disclosure mechanism, and Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the statutes lacks plausibility as clarified in a prior appeal. Consequently, they have not established an informational injury since NIST has complied with the NCST Act's requirements. Additionally, Count X, which claims a procedural violation by NIST regarding a request for correction, does not provide standing without demonstrating concrete harm. Regarding organizational standing, Architects claims a financial stake from a rewards program and asserts that inaccuracies in the Report compelled them to expend resources on a study about the collapse. These arguments are tied to the informational injury claim and therefore also fail.

Allegations of harm against NIST are based on its failure to disclose accurate information, which Architects claims necessitated an engineering study and is crucial for a successful application to the State Department. However, Architects has not demonstrated any actual informational harm. The D.C. Circuit previously rejected claims that the State Department program grants standing, as the argument relies on speculation that NIST’s disclosures would lead to terrorist prosecutions and subsequent awards from the State Department. Additionally, previous rulings determined that advocacy-related expenses do not constitute an Article III injury, as the engineering study's primary purpose was to critique NIST's findings, a typical advocacy activity. Architects' reference to PETA v. USDA is unconvincing; unlike the USDA's failure to provide guidelines that limited PETA's ability to file complaints, NIST has complied with relevant statutes and has not obstructed access to information. Architects has not established that its mission was impaired, as its critique of the WTC 7 Report aligns with its goal to expose perceived truths about 9/11. Ultimately, Architects lacks standing to pursue these claims, and the Court will grant the Secretary’s motion to dismiss the case.