Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, et al. v. Gina M. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al.

A. Did the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Erroneously Nullify the Doctrine of Organizational Standing, by Conflating It with Informational Standing, Contrary to the Supreme Court’s Decision in Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman? B. Did the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Substantially Undercut the Doctrine of Informational Standing in Erroneously Deciding, in a Manner that Conflicts with or at Minimum Circumvents Decisions of the Supreme Court, that None of the Plaintiffs, including 9/11 Victim Family Members, Demonstrated Article III Informational Standing Because, in the Court of Appeals’ View, Plaintiffs’ Reading of the National Construction Safety Team Act as Requiring Agency Reports on Major Building Failures to Be Done Honestly and in Good Faith Is “Not Plausible?” C. Did the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Substantially Undercut the Doctrine of Informational Standing in Erroneously Deciding that None of the Plaintiffs Demonstrated Article III Informational Standing, to Challenge a Scientifically Baseless and False Agency Report, on the Ground that Plaintiff’s Own Investigation Provided Them the Truthful Information About the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 that the Agency, Via Its False Report, Had Denied Them?