Eugene Nyambal, Appellant v. Steven T. Mnuchin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Treasury, Appellee
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court correctly concluded that appellant failed to demonstrate his injury was likely to be redressed by a favorable decision because even if the court were to compel the Secretary of the Treasury to comply with section 7071(c) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 by seeking to ensure that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) implements best practices for the protection of whistleblowers from retaliation, that would not make it “ ‘likely, as opposed to merely speculative’ ” that the IMF would actually implement practices that would lead to the adjudication of appellant's retaliation claims. Banner Health v. Price, 867 F.3d 1323, 1334 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs, 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000)); see, e.g., Renal Physicians Ass'n v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 489 F.3d 1267, 1274 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (“[S]tanding ․ cannot be founded merely on speculation as to what third parties will do in response to a favorable ruling.”); Talenti v. Clinton, 102 F.3d 573, 578 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (concluding that injury would not be redressed by favorable decision because it was speculative to assume that the Italian government would respond to a suspension of aid by negotiating a resolution of plaintiff's claim).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.