1000 Friends of Wisconsin Inc. v. United States Department of Transportation
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10771
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Wisconsin sought to widen Route 23 and proposed to use federal highway funds; USDOT issued an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a Record of Decision (ROD) approving federal funding.
- Opponents sued under NEPA in district court; the court vacated USDOT’s ROD, finding the traffic forecast disclosure inadequate, and declined to issue an injunction.
- USDOT did not appeal the district court’s judgment; Wisconsin (the State DOT and an official) alone appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
- After the district court’s first vacatur USDOT issued a revised EIS, but the district court again held the information inadequate and reiterated vacatur; Wisconsin appealed that judgment.
- The Seventh Circuit majority dismissed Wisconsin’s appeals for lack of a justiciable controversy, concluding Wisconsin’s injury was not redressable because USDOT — the only party whose obligations were affected by the judgment — elected not to appeal and remains bound by the vacatur.
- A dissent argued Wisconsin has redressability and standing (special solicitude for States), stressing: the judgment applied to both USDOT and Wisconsin, the ROD is necessary for permits/funding, declaratory relief differs from an injunction, and reversal would restore eligibility for federal funds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing — redressability after agency declines to appeal | Wisconsin: reversal would reinstate ROD and restore eligibility for federal funds and permits, redressing injury | USDOT/majority: because USDOT did not appeal, it remains bound by vacatur; Wisconsin cannot obtain relief on appeal that would change USDOT’s obligations | Held: Appeal dismissed — Wisconsin’s injury not redressable while USDOT remains bound (no justiciable controversy) |
| Who may continue project absent federal funding | Wisconsin: can proceed (and sought to rely on ROD for permits/funding) | Majority: NEPA applies to federal agencies only; state may proceed on its own funds but cannot use federal funds while ROD vacated | Held: USDOT cannot fund project absent a new compliant EIS/ROD; Wisconsin technically free to spend state funds but practical permitting/funding consequences exist (dispositive for standing analysis) |
| Whether a non-appealing federal agency’s silence bars a different litigant from pursuing appellate review | Wisconsin: State as co‑lead and special‑solicitude should be allowed to appeal; precedents allowing third‑party appellants exist | Majority: Supreme Court and circuit precedent restricts appeals by litigants seeking to vindicate relief against an agency that chose not to appeal | Held: Majority follows precedent and declines to reach merits because agency did not appeal; dissent disagrees and would reach merits |
| Significance of declaratory vs injunctive relief for redressability | Wisconsin/dissent: vacatur/declaratory judgment operated to bar permitting and funding; reversal would reinstate ROD and redress injury without needing agency to cross‑appeal | Majority: declaratory vacatur is binding on USDOT which has not appealed; nothing this court can say will compel USDOT to fund project so injury not redressable here | Held: Majority treats USDOT’s failure to appeal as dispositive; dissent emphasizes declaratory relief is not coercive and reversal would restore ROD eligibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013) (private proponents lacked Article III standing to defend a state law after state refused to do so)
- Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986) (private parties lacked standing to defend a state statute when the State declined to appeal)
- Princeton Univ. v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100 (1982) (plaintiff university lacked standing where it had amended challenged regulation, and State’s neutrality did not itself create standing)
- Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Branson, 212 F.3d 995 (7th Cir. 2000) (appeal dismissed where relief bound the non‑appealing public agency, leaving no redressability for other appellants)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, and redressability)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (timely appeal is jurisdictional)
- Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008) (an appellate court cannot grant a remedy favorable to an appellee who did not cross‑appeal)