Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce for Lack of Standing and Transfer to the U.S. District Court for the District Of Columbia

INTRODUCTION

Like many local chambers, Plaintiff Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce has a membership made up of a mix of businesses—large and small, national and local. Despite their differences in size and reach, such businesses have joined together to support the business and economic development of Fort Worth, recognizing that all stand to benefit from economic growth in the region they operate. It should thus be no surprise that the Fort Worth Chamber takes positions on matters that affect its membership, whether those matters are the subject of debate and decision in Fort Worth, Austin, or Washington. The Fort Worth Chamber does not limit itself to advocating on behalf of businesses headquartered in Fort Worth, nor would it make sense to do so. After all, issues that affect large businesses operating in Fort Worth will affect Fort Worth. This lawsuit is but one example. 

Plaintiff Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce has at least six members that are large credit card issuers operating in Fort Worth who will be directly harmed by the Final Rule, in addition to other members who will be indirectly harmed by it. This Court was thus correct when it found on May 10, 2024, that “the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce does qualify for associational standing.” Order 7 n.3, ECF No. 82 (“PI Order”) (emphasis in original). 

Defendants ask this Court to reconsider that holding, arguing that this lawsuit is not “germane” to the Fort Worth Chamber’s mission. But as the Fifth Circuit has held, and Defendants recognize, “the germaneness requirement is ‘undemanding’ and requires ‘mere pertinence’ between the litigation at issue and the organization’s purpose.” Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Tex. Med. Bd., 627 F.3d 547, 550 n.2 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council of Buffalo v. Downtown Dev., Inc., 448 F.3d 138, 148 (2nd Cir. 2006)). The Fort Worth Chamber easily satisfies that standard. It is a business organization challenging a rule that will harm businesses operating in Fort Worth, including at least six of its members, and will specifically affect access to credit and the financial services industry in Fort Worth, both of which are critical to the Fort Worth Chamber’s mission. 

Against the overwhelming body of current law, Defendants press two tactics. First, they intone that the Fort Worth Chamber’s directly affected members are “located” or “based” out-ofstate. That is a sleight of hand, because the Fort Worth Chamber is located in Fort Worth and its members operate in Fort Worth: what Defendants really mean is some of these members are “headquartered” out of state, but they have cited no precedent that the germaneness inquiry turns on a look-through analysis of the headquarters of each of an association’s affected members. Injecting such considerations into the germaneness inquiry would hamper local organizations’ abilities to challenge national policies that have real effects in their communities and allow the federal government to push litigation out of proper venues and into the District of Columbia. Nothing in Article III, nor in the federal venue statutes, warrants limiting local organizations in this way. Next Defendants suggest that Justice Thomas’ recent concurrence on associational standing calls into question the Fort Worth Chamber’s standing in this case, but that concurrence is expressly about what Justice Thomas believes the law should be, not what it is. 

The Fort Worth Chamber has standing under existing law that binds this Court. Defendants’ motion for transfer should be denied. 

Download to read the full text.