ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
ORDER of USCA as to 13 Notice of Appeal, filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER ; USCA Case Number 12-5054. ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be denied and the motion for summary affirmance be granted. (kb)
United States Court of Appeals
F OR T HE D ISTRICT OF C OLUMBIA C IRCUIT
September Term 2011
Filed On: March 5, 2012
Electronic Privacy Information Center,
Federal Trade Commission,
Henderson, Tatel, and Brown, Circuit Judges
Upon consideration of the emergency motion for summary reversal and to
expedite case, and the opposition thereto; and the motion for summary affirmance, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be denied and the motion for
summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to
warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297
(D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court correctly dismissed appellant’s
complaint seeking to compel the Federal Trade Commission to enforce its Consent
Order. “[A]n agency’s decision not to prosecute or enforce . . . is a decision generally
committed to an agency’s absolute discretion.” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831
(1985). Appellant has not shown that Congress “has provided guidelines for the agency
to follow in exercising its enforcement powers” and therefore has failed to rebut the
presumption that the Commission’s enforcement decision is not subject to judicial
review. Id. at 833.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
Timothy A. Ralls
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.