Butte County, California v. Hogen
197 F. Supp. 3d 82
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- The Mechoopda Indian Tribe sought to have a 625-acre parcel near Chico, California (the "Chico Parcel") taken into trust for gaming; the Interior Secretary approved in 2008, and the parcel was later taken into trust after a 2014 decision.
- Butte County challenged the 2008 decision; the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded because the Interior Department had not clearly considered Butte County's 2006 Beckham Report. Butte Cnty. v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
- The district court ordered the Secretary on remand to include and consider the 2006 Beckham Report; the Department reopened the record, invited new submissions, received the Tribe's June 28, 2011 submission (including the Tiley Report), and later closed the record.
- Butte County sought further opportunity to rebut the Tiley Report, filed additional Beckham reports after the 2014 Secretary decision, and moved to supplement the administrative record. The Secretary issued a 50+ page 2014 Decision approving the trust acquisition.
- Butte County challenged the 2014 Decision as arbitrary and capricious and sought to supplement the record with a 2014 Beckham Report; the district court denied Butte County's summary judgment motion and upheld the Secretary's 2014 Decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of remand — could Department solicit/consider new evidence on remand? | Beckham/Butte: remand required only consideration of the 2006 Beckham Report; Department should not expand scope or accept new Tribe materials. | Interior: remand was broad; agency may in its discretion request and consider additional evidence and reopen record. | Held: Department acted within remand scope; it permissibly sought and considered additional submissions (including Tiley Report). |
| Opportunity to rebut Tribe's June 28 submission (Tiley Report) | Butte: Secretary erred by not giving adequate opportunity to rebut and by relying on new evidence introduced by Tribe. | Interior: provided opportunity and later reopened record; Butte declined to submit rebuttal in reopened window; APA does not require more in informal adjudication. | Held: No procedural error; Butte had opportunity and cannot complain after failing to use it; agency procedures adequate. |
| Whether court should consider Butte’s 2014 Beckham Report (supplement/extra-record) | Butte: the 2014 Beckham Report rebuts Tiley and should be added or considered as extra-record evidence. | Interior: review limited to the administrative record before the Secretary at decision time; post-decision Beckham report was not before agency. | Held: Denied. Court will not supplement or consider the 2014 Beckham Report because it post-dates the Secretary’s decision and no Esch/IMS exception applies. |
| Substantive APA challenge — was the 2014 Decision arbitrary and capricious? | Butte: Secretary failed to reconcile or adequately respond to the 2006 Beckham Report, relied on irrelevant/new evidence, and ignored contrary evidence. | Interior: 2014 Decision is detailed; it considered the 2006 Beckham Report, other submissions, and gave reasoned explanations for findings. | Held: Denied. Court finds 2014 Decision thorough, rational, and not arbitrary or capricious. |
Key Cases Cited
- Butte Cnty. v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (vacating 2008 trust decision and remanding for consideration of Beckham Report)
- New Life Evangelistic Ctr., Inc. v. Sebelius, 753 F. Supp. 2d 103 (D.D.C. 2010) (agency may supplement record on remand; scope of remand review)
- Styrene Info. & Research Ctr., Inc. v. Sebelius, 851 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D.D.C. 2012) (standards for supplementing the administrative record and extra-record evidence)
- IMS, P.C. v. Alvarez, 129 F.3d 618 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (narrowing Esch exceptions for extra-record evidence)
- Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (cautioning that Esch exceptions are limited; favoring review of the record before the agency)
- Union Elec. Co. v. FERC, 890 F.2d 1193 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (agency may supplement record on remand)
- PPG Indus., Inc. v. United States, 52 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (agency permitted to reopen proceedings and take new evidence after remand)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (standards for arbitrary and capricious review under the APA)