On Jan. 8, 2014, six self-described "Juggalos" (or fans of the Insane Clown Posse, or any other Psychopathic Records hip hop group) filed this lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and Declaratory Judgment Act. The plaintiffs were represented by the ACLU and private counsel. Their complaint alleged that the FBI had conducted a "threat assessment" in 2011 that classified Juggalos as a "loosely organized hybrid gang," a designation, the complaint alleged, that caused the plaintiffs various harms, including extra police attention. The plaintiffs alleged, under the APA, that the defendants had violated their constitutional rights in the following ways: (1) agency action contrary to the First Amendment's freedom of association, (2) agency action contrary to the First Amendment's freedom of expression, (3) agency action that violates due process under the Fifth Amendment, (4) arbitrary and capricious agency action, (5) agency action that fails to observe procedures required by law. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
The case was assigned to District Judge Robert Cleland. On Apr. 9, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. On June 30, 2014, Judge Cleland granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the alleged injuries were not sufficiently certain or precise to allow them standing to sue. Parsons v. U.S. Department of Justice, 30 F.Supp.3d 648 (E.D. Mich. 2014).
The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On Sept. 17, 2015, Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation, authored a unanimous opinion reversing the district court's June 30, 2014, dismissal. Judge Sargus found that the plaintiffs did have standing to sue, and did not rule on the merits, but rather remanded the case to the district court. Parsons v. U.S. Department of Justice, 2015 WL 5446909, 801 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2015).
On Jan. 29, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the case, and the district court granted the motion on Sept. 29, 2016. The court found that the alleged harms were due to actions of third parties - for example, the local police and sheriff departments - and not the defendants. These harms were therefore not legal consequences, and did not qualify for judicial review under the APA. Further, the court held that the defendants' actions were the result of legally mandated agency discretion and therefore not subject to APA review. Separately, the court did not find merit in the plaintiffs' claim that their classification violated the due process requirement to avoid vagueness as the classification did not require anything of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed notice of appeal on Oct. 13, 2016.
On Dec. 18, 2017, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case under the same final agency action analysis for APA claims. Echoing the lower court's analysis, it classified the DOJ report as a product of "independent agency decision making." Because the report was purely "informational," the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated legal consequences flowing from it. Rather, the harms alleged stemmed from discretionary reliance on the designation by third parties.
We believe that the case is effectively closed.
Margo Schlanger - 09/20/2015
Virginia Weeks - 10/09/2017
Chelsea Rinnig - 02/28/2018
Elizabeth Greiter - 03/20/2018
compress summary
