In December 2019, U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss dismissed the case, concluding that plaintiffs lacked standing. The court found that "it is certainly plausible, and perhaps likely" that the executive order and accompanying OMB guidance "have delayed or derailed at least some regulatory actions that, if adopted, would materially benefit Plaintiffs or some of their members."Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Trump, 435 F. Supp. 3d 144 (D.D.C. 2019). However, the court found that this was insufficient to establish standing, since "it is hard to say with the requisite degree of confidence which actions those are, what would have occurred in the absence of the Executive Order, how any identifiable individual (or entity) is harmed, and whether any such harm—or risk of harm—is sufficient to establish standing," because the administration did not identify "whether and when a proposed . . . regulatory action [has been] delayed or abandoned due to the requirements of the Executive Order." The plaintiffs opted not to appeal the dismissal of the case.Watchdog group won’t appeal latest dismissal of lawsuit against ‘2-for-1’ deregulatory order, Safety & Health Magazine (January 22, 2020).
