37 F.4th 678
D.C. Cir.2022Background
- City of Scottsdale petitioned to review the FAA's approval of new east-bound flight paths out of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, alleging inadequate environmental and historic‑resource review under federal law.
- Scottsdale claimed the new paths increased noise and pollution over city‑owned property, causing concrete harms that would give it standing to sue.
- Standing requires an injury‑in‑fact that is traceable to the challenged action and likely redressable; the court applied Lujan’s three‑part test and the D.C. Circuit’s evidentiary requirement for standing.
- Scottsdale relied on a City Attorney declaration identifying city sites with more noise and an expert report; the declaration was conclusory and lacked specific instances or measurements.
- The FAA conducted a noise study and found no recordable noise increases in Scottsdale; Scottsdale’s expert suggested some noise might come from flights to/from other local airports, not Sky Harbor.
- Because Scottsdale failed to produce evidentiary support showing that the challenged Sky Harbor flight paths actually caused injury to city property, the court dismissed the petition for lack of standing and did not decide the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing — injury‑in‑fact | New east‑bound paths cause increased noise and pollution on Scottsdale property | Scottsdale produced no measurements or specific incidents; FAA study shows no recordable increases | No standing: plaintiff failed to show actual injury |
| Traceability / causation | Harms are traceable to FAA’s approval of Sky Harbor paths | Noise may originate from flights to/from other airports; causation not established | No standing: chain of causation not proven |
| Sufficiency of evidence | City Attorney declaration and expert report suffice to show harm | Declaration is conclusory and unsubstantiated; expert report implicates other airports | Evidence insufficient under D.C. Cir. standards; standing unmet |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (formulates constitutional standing test)
- Utility Workers Union of Am. Local 464 v. FERC, 896 F.3d 573 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (party must produce evidence sufficient to support standing)
- Nat. Wildlife Fed. v. Hodel, 839 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (noise/pollution can constitute cognizable injury for standing)
- City of Olmsted Falls v. FAA, 292 F.3d 261 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (geographic proximity alone does not confer NEPA standing)