Harkonen v. USDOJ, No. 13-15197 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a medical doctor, filed suit arguing that he has the right to obtain, and the DOJ has an obligation to provide, the correction of statements the DOJ made about him in a 2009 press release. Plaintiff argued that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., provides for judicial review of the DOJ's denial of his correction requests under the Information Quality Act (IQA), Pub. L. No. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763. The court concluded that the DOJ’s exclusion of press releases from the ambit of the IQA guidelines was within the discretion accorded to the agency and that the DOJ’s exclusion of press releases applies to the press release of which plaintiff seeks correction. Applying the second step of the Chevron analysis, the court concluded that the DOJ’s determination that the 2009 press release fell within its exclusion of press releases is neither erroneous nor inconsistent with the scope of dissemination as defined in the agency-specific guidelines. Therefore, the DOJ’s determination is accorded Auer v. Robbins deference. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the suit.
Court Description: Information Quality Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of Dr. W. Scott Harkonen’s action seeking the correction of statements the United States Department of Justice made about Dr. Harkonen in a 2009 press release. The Information Quality Act required the Office of Management and Budget to draft guidelines for federal agencies that disseminate information, and required each agency to issue its own agency-specific guidelines to correct disseminated information. The DOJ issued a 2009 press release concerning Dr. Harkonen’s wire fraud conviction, and Dr. Harkonen alleged that DOJ’s refusal to issue a correction was arbitrary and capricious. The panel applied Chevron analysis, and held that the Office of Management and Budget’s and DOJ’s exclusion of press releases from the coverage of the Information Quality Act guidelines was not arbitrary and capricious, or manifestly contrary to the Information Quality Act. The panel also held that DOJ’s exclusion of press releases applied to the press release of which Dr. Harkonen sought correction. HARKONEN V. U.S.D.O.J. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.