Center for Food Safety v. Vilsack
636 F.3d 1166
9th Cir.2011Background
- APHIS permits the planting of limited juvenile Roundup Ready sugar beet stecklings under NEPA and Part 340; the permits place restrictions, including no flowering before expiration.
- The district court preliminarily enjoined destruction of stecklings, ruling Plaintiffs showed likely irreparable harm from NEPA analysis defects and potential future events.
- Plaintiffs allege APHIS violated NEPA by segmenting analyses of Roundup Ready beets rather than evaluating the full lifecycle.
- Defendants challenge standing and the likelihood of irreparable harm, urging deferential treatment of agency expertise and limited, time-bound permits.
- This appeal concerns the August 2010 steckling permits; the court reviews whether the injunction should have been granted or reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion on irreparable harm. | Plaintiffs showed imminent harm from future events and SE changes. | Harm is speculative; limited, time-bound stecklings pose negligible risk. | No reversible irreparable harm; injunction improper. |
| Whether APHIS violated NEPA by segmenting environmental analysis. | NEPA requires a single, integrated analysis of the crop's impacts. | Segmented analyses comply or are not probative of harm to plaintiffs. | Standing for procedural NEPA challenge established; merits later examined. |
| Whether Plaintiffs have standing to challenge NEPA decisions. | Geographic nexus and concrete interests of organic farmers and consumers. | Standing defeats absent concrete injury. | Plaintiffs have standing; essential to reach NEPA issues. |
| Whether the injunction should issue given the limited scope of steckling permits. | Injury could arise from broader, future APHIS decisions. | Injunctive relief premature for actions limited to 2011 and confined locations. | Injunctive relief improper given limited, non-imminent risk. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 341 F.3d 961 (9th Cir. 2003) (standing for procedural NEPA injury requires geographic nexus and injury potential)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete injury; causal link and redressability)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (injunctive relief requires likely irreparable harm; procedural injuries treated specially)
- Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743 (2010) (regulatory context of deregulation and limited actions; caution against premature relief)
- City of Sausalito v. O'Neill, 386 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004) (cognizable procedural NEPA injury when analysis is improper)
- Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472 (9th Cir. 2011) (standing and injury considerations in environmental challenges)
- Bates v. United Parcel Serv., 511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) (irreparable harm and injury standards in injunctions)
- Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2002) (causation and redressability concepts in NEPA challenges)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing and zone-of-interest principles in environmental suits)