Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Wheeler, 352 F. Supp. 3d 1

Background

In 2018 CREW and PEER sued EPA and Scott Pruitt alleging an agency practice (driven by Pruitt) of avoiding creation of federal records in violation of the Federal Records Act (FRA); they sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
The Complaint pleaded two live counts: (I) an allegedly ongoing policy/practice of failing to create records (at Pruitt's direction) and (II) a deficient agency records-management program; a third count against the Archivist was dismissed earlier.
After the suit was filed, Pruitt resigned (July 2018) and Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler took over.
EPA issued an "Interim Records Management Policy" (Aug. 22, 2018), emailed to staff and contractors, expressly requiring documentation of substantive oral decisions and superseding inconsistent prior policies.
Defendants moved to dismiss as moot (alternatively for summary judgment); the court considered whether the personnel change and new policy deprived the court of a live Article III controversy.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Count I (policy/practice claim tied to Pruitt) remains live after Pruitt's resignation	Pruitt's practices created an agency-wide policy/practice; relief should reach EPA generally	Pruitt's departure severs the ongoing injury; claim is tied to his tenure so no prospective relief can affect him	Moot: Count I lacks a continuing injury because allegations are tied to Pruitt, who left, and requested relief is forward-looking
Whether Count II (deficient records-management program) is mooted by EPA's new policy	The new policy is insufficient; Plaintiffs seek a compliant program and effective controls, not just a policy	EPA's interim policy cures the specific regulatory defect (documentation of oral decisions); EPA implemented trainings and communications	Moot: EPA's revised policy remedies the asserted program deficiency that supported Count II
Whether voluntary cessation doctrine saves the case from mootness	EPA could revert or remnants of misconduct may remain; voluntary change should not automatically moot the suit	Government has heavy burden but here EPA (a government actor) adopted a new binding policy, emailed staff, and the principal actor left	Moot under voluntary-cessation: no reasonable expectation of recurrence and effects eradicated; government affidavits and actions suffice
Scope of permissible judicial relief under APA re FRA compliance	Plaintiffs seek broad injunction compelling EPA to make and preserve records agency-wide	Courts are limited to reviewing agency policies/practices (not isolated violations); cannot impose pervasive day-to-day oversight	Court reiterates limits: APA suits can target agency policy/practice but cannot convert into ongoing supervision of isolated FRA violations; requested broad monitoring relief is inappropriate

Key Cases Cited

CREW v. Pruitt, 319 F. Supp. 3d 252 (D.D.C. 2018) (prior opinion addressing justiciability and scope of FRA challenge)
Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (Article III requires a legally cognizable interest; mootness doctrine)
Aref v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 242 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (voluntary cessation test: no reasonable expectation of recurrence and eradication of effects)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (government must make it absolutely clear wrongdoing will not recur)
Worth v. Jackson, 451 F.3d 854 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (expiration or replacement of policy can moot challenge)
Armstrong v. Bush, 924 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (courts cannot police day-to-day agency compliance; limits on judicial supervision under APA)
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (APA does not authorize courts to compel agencies to act in particular ways that amount to pervading oversight)
LaRoque v. Holder, 679 F.3d 905 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (mootness where plaintiffs obtained the relief sought)