Roe et al v. Defense et al, No. 1:2018cv01565 - Document 261 (E.D. Va. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION: For the reasons stated above, the defendants' motions to dismiss [Harrison, 0kt. 154; Roe, Dkt. 118] will be denied by an Order to be issued with this Memorandum Opinion. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 3/27/20. (yguy)

Download PDF
Roe et al v. Defense et al Doc. 261 Dockets.Justia.com requests, and ultimately delayed at least nine specific advocative, educational, and legal projects, all of which lay at the core of its mission, to serve the needs of those who had requested help. Several courts have held that such "discrete programmatic concerns" which were " directly and adversely affected" are sufficient to establish direct standing, and in doing so have explicitly analogized Havens Realty and distinguished Lane. See, e.g., Nat' ! Federation of the Blind v. U.S. Dep' t of Educ., 407 F. Supp. 3d 524, 531-33 (D. Md. 2019) (explaining that unlike the Second Amendment organization in Lane, and "[l]ike the fair housing organization in Havens Realty. [the plaintiffs] ha[d] alleged a need to expend more resources than usual to assist their members in a specific fashion that [was] core to their mission"). 12 Accordingly, as in Havens Realty. there is " no question" that Outserve had direct standing to sue. 13 455 U.S. at 379. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the defendants' motions to dismiss [Harrison, 0kt. 154; Roe, Dkt. 118] will be denied by an Order to be issued with this Memorandum Opinion. Entered this d-~ day of March, 2020. Leonie M. Brinkea:a United States District Judge Alexandria, Virginia 12 See also Casa de Md. v. Trump. 414 F. Supp. 3d 760, 773 (D. Md. 2019) (explaining that " like [the organization] in Havens Realty" and "unlike the organization in Lane, [the plaintiff] allege(d] that the diversion of its resources frustrated its mission by preventing it from continuing an affirmative advocacy posture, including, for example, advocating on public health issues at the state and local level in Maryland"). 13 The defendants briefly argue that even if the plaintiffs have demonstrated an injury-in-fact in the manner discussed above, they cannot demonstrate that such an injury was caused by increased work regarding the military' s accession and retention policies specifically, rather than increased HIV-related work generally, increased legal services work generally, or Outserve' s purportedly strained finances. This argument is unpersuasive because the causation element of standing only requires that the challenged policies be "in part responsible" for the plaintiff's injury. Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 899 F.3d 260, 283 (4th Cir. 2018). "[T]he causation element of standing does not require the challenged [policies] to be the sole or even immediate cause of the injuries." Id. at 284; see also Libertarian Party. 718 F.3d at 316. 16

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.