“Associational standing”; Whether the lawsuit was “germane” to a plaintiff’s purpose; Venue for suits against federal-government defendants; 28 USC § 1391(e)(1)(C); U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS); The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)

The court held that plaintiffs-Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, and Michigan Chamber of Commerce did not meet the “germaneness requirement” for associational standing in this case challenging the constitutionality of the Drug Price Negotiation Program. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for lack of proper venue. Plaintiffs sued the HHS, the CMS, and the agencies’ heads over the ability to negotiate prices for drugs manufactured to sell to Medicare and Medicaid under the Program. They claimed the Program is unconstitutional. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the Due Process Clause, the Excessive Fines Clause, and the First Amendment. The district court ruled that none of the regional chamber plaintiffs could “satisfy the test for associational standing” and dismissed the case based on improper venue. On appeal, the court first reviewed the district court’s ruling that the interests at stake were not germane to the purpose of the regional chambers. It noted that the “Dayton Chamber itself acknowledges that its primary purpose is to advocate for a business-friendly environment in the Dayton region.” While plaintiffs claimed “a broader purpose of safeguarding the principles of free enterprise and advocating for a business-friendly legislative and regulatory environment, the interests that they aim to protect are greatly attenuated from the regional interests of the Dayton Chamber.” It noted that in cases “where a challenge to associational standing has failed, the ‘germaneness’ (i.e., the relationship between the subject of the lawsuit and the purpose of the plaintiff association) has been much more direct.” In contrast, in cases where challenges “to association standing have been successful, ‘germaneness’ has been found too remote.” The court found this case was closer to the latter cases. There was “little reason to believe that the Dayton Chamber has any particular knowledge or experience in the subject matter of the lawsuit.” It explained that an “essential link” was missing here. “The subject matter of the litigation—the constitutionality of a federal program applicable only to pharmaceutical manufacturers—is simply not germane to the Dayton Chamber’s purpose of promoting regional business.” As to venue, given that the Dayton Chamber and the Ohio Chamber lacked standing to sue, venue in Ohio was improper. And because plaintiffs “did not identify an appropriate venue outside of Ohio that the case could be transferred to” if those chambers lacked standing, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case. Affirmed.