Agred Foundation v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3 F.4th 1069
| 8th Cir. | 2021Background
- Lake Erling is a reservoir created by International Paper (IP) under a 1952 Act of Exchange with the United States that allowed flooding of government land but prohibited placing restrictions on public use and required public access routes.
- In 2013 IP conveyed the lakebed to the AGRED Foundation (AGRED), which assumed IP’s obligations under the Act; AGRED and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) executed a Memorandum designating certain access routes but did not address fee-setting.
- AGRED began charging fees for various types of lake access; Friends of Lake Erling Association (FOLEA) sued AGRED in state court, and the state court granted summary judgment enjoining AGRED from charging those fees (state litigation ongoing).
- Before the state-court injunction, AGRED asked the USACE to recognize its right to charge fees; the USACE declined to take a position, stating the Act and Memorandum are silent on fee-setting and that fee-setting is not within USACE’s purview.
- AGRED sued the USACE in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that its fee program is consistent with the Act; the district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding AGRED lacked Article III standing because its injury was not caused by the USACE.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding AGRED failed the causation/traceability requirement for standing—the state-court suit and injunction, not USACE inaction, caused the injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AGRED has Article III standing (causation) | USACE’s refusal to recognize AGRED’s right to charge fees caused the state-court suit and injunction | Injury stems from FOLEA’s suit and AGRED’s fee decisions; USACE inaction did not cause the injury | No standing—injury not fairly traceable to USACE |
| Whether AGRED faces a credible, imminent threat of USACE enforcement (pre-enforcement) | USACE could later enforce the Act against AGRED, creating an imminent injury | USACE disclaimed authority/position; any enforcement threat is speculative | No—threat speculative and not imminent |
| Whether a real contractual dispute exists between AGRED and USACE for declaratory relief | The Act of Exchange creates contract rights and AGRED needs declaration to avoid breach/enforcement | USACE refuses to take a position and says fee-setting is outside its purview; no actual dispute between the parties | No—no non-hypothetical contract controversy suitable for declaratory relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (standing requires injury, causation, and redressability)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (injury must be fairly traceable to defendant’s challenged action)
- Alexis Bailly Vineyard, Inc. v. Harrington, 931 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2019) (object-of-government-action and credible-threat principles in pre-enforcement suits)
- Miller v. Redwood Toxicology Lab’y, Inc., 688 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2012) (attenuated causal chains may defeat traceability)
- Maytag Corp. v. Int’l Union, 687 F.3d 1076 (8th Cir. 2012) (declaratory relief in contract contexts requires a real, non-hypothetical controversy)
- Dantzler, Inc. v. Empresas Berríos Inventory & Operations, Inc., 958 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2020) (traceability demands a sufficiently direct causal connection)