800 F. Supp. 2d 270
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiffs challenged a June 13, 2011 BLM decision (Modified Decision) to round up 90% of wild horses from White Mountain and Little Colorado HMAs in Wyoming and to return mainly castrated males.
- The Modified Decision was subsequently rescinded and a Second Modified Decision Record issued on August 4, 2011 proposing fertility control with PZP instead.
- Plaintiffs alleged violations of NEPA, the Wild Free-Rroaming Horses and Burros Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
- On August 5, 2011, the agency notified that the Modified Decision had been rescinded, rendering the case moot.
- The Court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there is no live controversy and the capable-of-repetition-without-review exception does not apply.
- The Court noted the action challenged a specific agency decision and that future final decisions would be subject to judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case is moot and must be dismissed. | Mootness due to withdrawal of Modified Decision. | Modified Decision rescinded; no live controversy. | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether the capable of repetition yet evading review exception applies. | Action likely to recur with gelding in other HMAs. | Exception not satisfied; review available before final action. | Not applicable; mootness doctrine bars case. |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Modified Decision. | Plaintiffs have concrete interests in the specific WY HMAs. | Standing limited to the challenged action; broader challenges lack standing. | Standing insufficient for nationwide or Oregon action. |
| Whether the APA challenge to a specific agency decision can proceed if the challenged action is moot. | Court should review ongoing agency practices as policy. | Challenge to a specific decision; mootness bars review. | Cannot review moot agency decision; case dismissed. |
| Whether the Court should retain jurisdiction to review future gelding decisions. | Court should preserve jurisdiction for future related actions. | No basis to preserve jurisdiction; not an ongoing policy challenge. | No jurisdiction to expand the case; future actions reviewable when final. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schering Corp. v. Shalala, 995 F.2d 1103 (D.C.Cir. 1993) (mootness and advisory opinions avoided when no live controversy)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court 1994) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by actions of the parties)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. EPA, 363 F.3d 442 (D.C.Cir. 2004) (court begins with jurisdiction in limited-jurisdiction context)
- Akinseye v. District of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970 (D.C.Cir. 2003) (jurisdictional requirements; Article II constraint on courts)
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (practical mootness and standing principles in juvenile context)