Whether a federal district court has standing and subject matter jurisdiction to hear a challenge to a federal agency director's appointment that allegedly violates statutory qualifications

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : These are questions of first impression. The Supreme Court has never decided these fundamental questions with regard to a Presidential appointment that violates a federal statute.1 ; Respondents have not filed an Answer, since these questions arise out of Respondents’ motion to dismiss in the District Court, which was granted and affirmed on appeal by the Seventh Circuit. Thus, if this Court grants this Petition and decides the jurisdictional questions in Petitioner’s favor, the case should be returned to the District Court with instructions to decide the federal question under 16 U.S. § 742b(b) and the appropriate relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act (“DJA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202. The Questions Presented are: 1. Standing. Whether Petitioner has standing within the meaning of Article III, Sec. 2, Clause 1 of the . U.S. Constitution to challenge a federal government . official (here Respondent Martha Williams (“Williams”), Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (“FWS”), an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior : (‘DOP’)), who was appointed by the President of the United States, in violation of a statute of the United States (here 16 U.S. § 742b(b)) that prescribes the 1 The Congressional Research Service prepared a Report in 2015 that identified 33 department and agency leadership positions for which Congress created statutory qualification requirements, including 16 U.S.C. § 742b(b) (page 23). Henry B. Hogue, U.S. Congressional Research Service, Statutory Qualifications for Executive Branch Positions (RL 33886; Sept. 9, 2015). Thereafter at least one additional leadership position-Chief of the Internal : Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals-was created by Congress with statutory qualifications. 26 U.S.C. § 7803(e)(2)(C). : qualifications for that office (here “scientific education”). . 2. Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Whether the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide Petitioner’s challenge (see above) under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which vests federal district courts with original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the... laws... of the United States,” and the authority under the DJA to provide the appropriate relief. ; ; iii