Citizens for Appropriate Rural v. Anthony Foxx
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4007
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- I-69 extension from Evansville to Indianapolis analyzed under NEPA Tier 1 and Tier 2; Tier 2 Section 4 finalized via FEIS and ROD in 2011.
- FHWA and INDOT reviewed 48 options within Tier 1 constraints; Final Route selected as Alternative 3C with a new corridor and upgraded SR 37 segment.
- Biological Opinion on Indiana bat conducted; reinitiated consultation addressing White-Nose Syndrome; revisions issued for Tier 1 and Tier 2.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in 2011; district court dismissed some counts and granted summary judgment on others; Plaintiffs appealed.
- On appeal, court addressed NEPA/CAA claims across Counts 7, 9, 13–18, and the ripeness and fraud-on-the-court arguments, affirming the district court.
- Key procedural posture includes ripeness disputes for Count 8 and evidentiary/discovery rulings challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a SEIS was required for Tier 2, Section 4 | Plaintiffs claim SEIS needed due to 2009 data and bat impact | Agency acted within discretion; 2009 data not finalized; no SEIS required | SEIS not required; summary judgment for Defendants |
| Whether use of 2004 vehicle fleet data violated CAA conformity | 2009 data should have been used for conformity | Data not finalized; decision to use 2004 data is rational and deference warranted | No CAA/APA violation; summary judgment for Defendants |
| Whether Counts 17–18 alleging NEPA concealment survive | Defendants concealed information regarding the decision-making | Evidence shows transparency; no concealment | Counts 17–18 lack sufficient evidence; summary judgment for Defendants |
| Whether Counts 9, 14–16 were ripe or properly disposed of | Claims should proceed despite ripeness concerns | Counts unripe or waived due to lack of response and failure to raise disputes | Counts 9, 14–16 appropriately resolved in Defendants’ favor; ripeness/waiver upheld |
| Whether fraud on the court or duty of candor warranted relief or an evidentiary hearing | Defendants engaged in fraud and concealment; hearing needed | No admissible evidence; hearsay issues; no grounds for hearing | No fraud or candor violation; no error in denying evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Weinberger v. State of Wisconsin, 745 F.2d 412 (7th Cir. 1984) (deference to agency SEIS/conformity decisions; substantial evidence standard)
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. NRDC, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (arbitrary and capricious review; scientific determinations require deference)
- Siegel v. Shell Oil Co., 612 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2010) ("put up or shut up" standard for summary judgment evidence)
- Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 1994) (abuse of discretion standard for subpoena quash decisions)
- Jersey Heights Neighborhood Association v. Glendening, 174 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 1999) (final agency action generally constitutes ripeness for challenges)