The debate over whether the Data Quality Act (DQA) is judicially reviewable might be getting closer to an end. The federal judge reviewing an industry DQA lawsuit questioned whether the statutory language provides for such review during oral arguments Sept. 3. The case, brought by the Salt Institute and the Chamber of Commerce against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is currently pending in a federal district court in Virginia. The plaintiffs claim that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) relied on a flawed study when disseminating information that claims or suggests that reduced sodium consumption will result in lower blood pressure in all individuals. The judge presiding on the case, U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee, voiced skepticism that the DQA provided the court the ability to review agency decisions. Lee observed that the plain language of the DQA law makes no mention of judicial review. Additionally, he cited the lack of legislative history, since the DQA passed Congress as an appropriations rider with no discussion or debate. Lee also questioned if the plaintiffs met the three-part test to have standing in court, noting that the Salt Institute could not demonstrate any harm suffered from the NIH information. Lastly, the judge echoed what many public interest groups have stated since the inception of the DQA -- that allowing judicial review would limit scientific discourse. A recent brief from the Department of Justice (DOJ) recommend the dismissal of this lawsuit for the same reasons Lee raised. DOJ asserted that the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the sodium study that underlies the agency statements because it is not sufficiently demonstrated that they incur any injury because of the agency's statements. Additionally, DOJ stated that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, and even if it did, there is no statutory basis for federal court review. If Lee dismisses the lawsuit, it would reinforce an earlier DQA ruling in which a Minnesota federal district court ruled that the DQA does not permit petitioners to seek judicial review. In the Minnesota ruling, the data quality issue was a minor one within a bigger complaint. (See Related Analysis.)