A U.S. District Court has ruled that the Data Quality Act (DQA) and its subsequent guidelines to agencies are not judicially reviewable. This represents the first DQA case handled by the courts. A previous court decision addressed the issue of the DQA's judicial reviewability, but that legal claim in that case was not limited to data quality. The court also found that plaintiffs, the Salt Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who filed the lawsuit against the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) over statements about the health benefits from lower sodium diets, lacked any legal standing. Based on these findings, the court dismissed the case on Nov. 15. Administrative Petition The Salt Institute and U.S. Chamber of Commerce had originally filed a May 2003 petition under the DQA to "correct" information in statements issued by NHLBI that declared reducing the amount of salt consumed would be healthy for everyone. The organizations contended that the statements violated the objectivity, transparency and reproducibility requirements of DQA because publicly released studies did not support such conclusions for "all" individuals. To read OMB Watch's analysis of the challenge click here. The petitioners requested that the agency respond by providing additional information from a key study. NHLBI denied the petition since no "correction" of information was actually sought. However, the agency also asserted that even if a specific correction were requested, the agency would still not grant the petition because the challenged documents were rigorously and independently peer reviewed in addition to meeting NHLBI’s publications procedures. The agency redirected the request for additional data to its Freedom of Information office. The organizations appealed NHLBI's rejection of the data quality challenge, which was again denied by the agency and resulted in the petitioners filing suit. Lawsuit Decision Judge Gerald Bruce Lee of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case after determining that the plaintiffs had failed to establish sufficient legal standing to bring the case, and the law they were suing under did not provide any basis for the court to intervene. The decision explains that the plaintiffs fail each portion of a three part test to establish legal standing.

• Part one requires that one prove that a specific injury has suffered. However, the Salt Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce do not even attempt to explain an "injury" such as reduced sales etc.
• Part two of the standing test requires that the injury be directly traceable to the specific action being challenged, in this case, the low sodium statements by the NHLBI. The agency's statements on the health benefits of reducing salt consumption are not unique, many studies and organization have advanced this conclusion. Therefore, even if an injury were suffered it could not be traced back to agency since so many other possible causes exist.
• Part three of the test requires that the injury will be redressed, or fixed, if the court renders a favorable decision. Again, since the plaintiffs did not establish any injury, this requirement cannot be met. Judge Lee notes that even if an injury existed because of the multitude of similar conclusions and recommendations on lower sodium, a favorable decision to withdraw NHLBI's statements would not significantly change or repair any damage the industry faces.

The decision also clearly explains why the courts have no authority over DQA disputes. Under the law, a court may only get involved if the statute itself provides a specific private right of action for judicial review or if the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) cover the actions sufficiently to allow review. Judge Lee notes in his decision that nothing in the DQA "provides a right of action in a court of law for alleged violations of its provisions." The judge believed that the language of the statute reflected Congress's intent that disputes be handled administratively and not before the courts. The decision also referenced the earlier Missouri River case, which first ruled on a DQA charge, although in that case the plaintiffs had not filed any administrative challenge. The court also ruled that the APA did not grant judicial review of this matter because the APA only allows court review if a final agency action has occurred and if the agency does not, by law, have discretion in the matter. The court ruled that neither requirement was met in this case. The NHLBI's statements do not represent a final agency action because such a final action is legally defined as an action from which rights are determined or legal consequences will follow. The decision also explained that agencies are considered to have legal discretion when courts have no meaningful standard against which to measure the agencies' actions. The court ruled that neither the DQA nor the resulting guidelines provide any "judicially manageable standards that would allow meaningful judicial review to determine if an agency properly exercised its discretion." In fact, the court found that guidelines contained language that grants agencies sufficient discretion on DQA matters to preclude court review. In the lawsuit the plaintiffs also asserted that NHLBI had violated the Shelby amendment because the agency had not provided them with all of the underlying data, even though the information had been developed with government funds. The Shelby amendment requires that "all data" produced under a government grant be subject to the "procedures established under the FOIA." However, Judge Lee astutely noted that the rules for the Shelby amendment restrict it only to studies fully funded under competitive contracts after April 2000, and only to data that supports an agency action that has the "force of law," such as a rule or regulation. The grant for the contested study was awarded in 1997, and clearly health advice to the U.S. public does not have the "force of law." For these reasons Judge Lee dismissed the charges that NHLBI violated the Shelby amendment. Lawsuit Appeal (added Jan. 25, 2005) The Salt Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an appeal Jan. 11 that would review the U.S. District Court decision which found that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing in the case, and it also determined that the DQA is not judicially reviewable. "Our appeal is for more transparency in the use of science," claimed Richard L. Hanneman, President of the Salt Institute, "and we are asking the court to banish the games-playing and data manipulation that has compromised implementation of the Data Quality Act by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute." It is doubtful that the plaintiffs' appeal will result in a determination that DQA is judicially reviewable, even if another judge determines they have standing.