Judge T.S. Ellis for the U.S. Eastern District of Virginia issued a summary judgment in favor of the government in the case of MAPPS vs. the U.S. Government. According to his ruling, "the government is entitled to summary judgment, as plaintiffs lack the requisite standing to maintain this action." In addition, the judge determined that, "Nothing in the legislative history of the 1988 amendment suggests that the phrase 'surveying and mapping' was intended to broaden the Brooks Act’s focus from construction on federal lands to the procurement of mapping services unrelated to construction on real property."
Much of the ruling centers on the judge's interpretation of "standing" in the suit. He asserted that, of the four named plaintiffs filing suit, only MAPPS has standing in the case because none of the others could demonstrate injury and were dismissed for lack of standing. However, he also questioned that as an organization whether MAPPS could bring suit as a third party for its members and therefore was not directly harmed. He states, "But before considering whether third party and associational standing exist here, it is necessary to consider whether it is appropriate to combine or stack third party and associational standing in this way – that is, whether an association may, under any circumstances, assert the putative injuries in fact of its members’ employees."
The complete ruling may be downloaded from
our website (pdf).
MAPPS has the option to appeal the decision within 60 days.
