897 F.3d 187
3rd Cir.2018Background
- Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. (Transco) sought and received a FERC certificate authorizing construction of a ~200-mile interstate natural gas pipeline that would run across land owned by the Adorers of the Blood of Christ in Columbia, PA.
- FERC conducted NEPA scoping and issued draft and final EIS notices; the Adorers received multiple notices but did not participate in the administrative comment/scoping or rehearing processes.
- After FERC issued the certificate, Transco initiated condemnation proceedings under the NGA; the district court granted condemnation and a preliminary injunction; the Adorers did not seek rehearing or appeal those NGA proceedings.
- The Adorers then sued FERC (and later added Transco) in district court, bringing a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) claim and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to stop the pipeline across their land.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding the NGA provides an exclusive review scheme (administrative rehearing then court of appeals review) that the Adorers failed to follow.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding RFRA does not override the NGA’s exclusive jurisdictional and exhaustion requirements and that the NGA + court of appeals process qualifies as the “judicial proceeding” RFRA contemplates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RFRA permits a district court action challenging a FERC certificate despite NGA's exclusive review scheme | RFRA’s remedial provision allows plaintiffs to assert RFRA claims in federal court (28 U.S.C. §1331), superseding other federal law when in conflict | NGA prescribes an exclusive, reticulated review procedure (administrative rehearing then court of appeals review); RFRA does not expressly confer district court jurisdiction | Held: RFRA does not abrogate NGA’s exclusive review; district court lacked jurisdiction because Adorers failed to seek FERC rehearing and the NGA governs review |
| Whether RFRA and the NGA conflict such that RFRA’s grant of a “judicial proceeding” requires district-court access | Adorers: RFRA applies to all federal law and thus permits district-court RFRA suits even against NGA procedural limits | Defendants: NGA’s combined FERC + court of appeals framework satisfies RFRA’s “judicial proceeding”; statutes are complementary, not in conflict | Held: No conflict; NGA’s administrative-plus-court-of-appeals process qualifies as a “judicial proceeding” under RFRA |
| Whether Thunder Basin factors allow district court review despite NGA exclusivity | Adorers: RFRA claims are not the type Congress intended to channel to the court of appeals; district court review necessary | Defendants: Thunder Basin favors NGA exclusivity—scheme shows intent, claims are not wholly collateral, and appellate review plus agency expertise are adequate | Held: Thunder Basin test supports preclusion of district court jurisdiction; claims are of the type Congress intended to be reviewed under NGA |
| Whether failure to participate in administrative process forecloses review and relief | Adorers: Could not practically intervene in third-party proceeding or anticipate RFRA issue; seeking district-court relief was necessary | Defendants: Parties may raise RFRA and other federal-law objections before FERC during the administrative process and then seek court-of-appeals review if unsatisfied | Held: Failure to raise objections and seek rehearing before FERC foreclosed subsequent district-court review; administrative process could have addressed the RFRA issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (two-step test for statutory preclusion of district-court jurisdiction)
- City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 357 U.S. 320 (exclusive statutory review under analogous Federal Power Act precludes collateral district-court attacks)
- Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368 (general federal-question jurisdiction does not override congressionally divested jurisdiction)
- Elgin v. Dep’t of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (agency factfinding plus court-of-appeals review can constitute adequate review)
- Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820 (specific statutory remedial schemes can be exclusive and preclude collateral procedures)
- Francis v. Mineta, 505 F.3d 266 (3d Cir.) (RFRA does not subsume exclusive statutory schemes such as Title VII)
- American Energy Corp. v. Rockies Express Pipeline LLC, 622 F.3d 602 (6th Cir.) (NGA exclusivity bars district-court collateral challenges)
- La Voz Radio de la Comunidad v. FCC, 223 F.3d 313 (6th Cir.) (RFRA does not mandate district-court forum where agency-specific review scheme exists)