A federal court in Washington, D.C., has dismissed a case involving a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made by three merchant mariners. The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue because the FOIA request was submitted by their attorney without indicating he was acting on their behalf. This ruling affects the plaintiffs' ability to seek attorneys' fees and costs related to the case.
The case, Reid v. Mayorkas, Civil Action No. 2024-2186, was filed on June 23, 2026, in the District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs, Tony J. Reid, Brandon A. Phillips, and Charlie Boagni, Jr., are merchant mariners who were denied the renewal of their Merchant Mariner Credentials (MMCs) due to prior sexual assault convictions. They sought to obtain records related to their denied applications through a FOIA request submitted by their attorney, Brett John O’Brien.
The dispute arose when the plaintiffs applied to renew their MMCs but were denied based on their past convictions. Following the denials, O’Brien submitted a FOIA request to the United States Coast Guard for records regarding denied MMC renewals. However, he did not specify that he was acting on behalf of the plaintiffs in his request.
After filing the FOIA request, the plaintiffs sued the defendants, including Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin and Admiral Kevin E. Lunday. They initially sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction regarding their MMC applications. However, the court denied their motion, stating that they were unlikely to succeed on the merits.
As the case progressed, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include a FOIA claim. The defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing because O’Brien had not indicated he was making the FOIA request on their behalf. The court agreed, stating, "The parties agree that only the person who made a FOIA request has standing to sue over the denial of that request."
Judge Rudolph Contreras presided over the case and ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing. The court pointed out that O’Brien's request did not mention the plaintiffs or indicate that he was acting on their behalf. The judge cited previous cases where courts ruled similarly, emphasizing that a clear indication of representation is necessary for standing in FOIA cases.
In the ruling, Judge Contreras stated, "Mr. O’Brien did not state that he was representing Plaintiffs and making the request on behalf of Plaintiffs." This lack of clarity ultimately led to the dismissal of the case.
The court also granted the defendants' motion to amend their answer to withdraw their prior admission that the plaintiffs had submitted the FOIA request. This amendment was allowed because the court found no reason to deny it, as the case had not progressed significantly since the defendants filed their answer.
The impact of this ruling is significant for the plaintiffs, as it prevents them from recovering attorneys' fees and costs associated with their FOIA request. The court denied their motion for fees as moot due to the dismissal of the case.
Going forward, this ruling sets a precedent regarding the necessity for clear communication in FOIA requests. It highlights the importance of attorneys specifying that they are acting on behalf of their clients when making such requests. The decision may influence how future FOIA requests are submitted and could affect other cases where standing is challenged based on similar grounds.
As for what’s next, the plaintiffs may consider appealing the decision. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The dismissal of this case raises questions about the future of FOIA requests made by attorneys on behalf of clients and the standards required for standing in such cases.