Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Export-Import Bank of the U.S, 894 F.3d 1005

In 2012 the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex‑Im Bank) authorized nearly $4.8 billion in loans for two LNG projects (APLNG and QCLNG) with downstream facilities on Curtis Island in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
The Projects were multinational ventures; Ex‑Im financed only a minority share of downstream costs and did not fund upstream components. Construction had begun and was substantially underway before Ex‑Im’s approvals.
Plaintiffs (environmental organizations) sued Ex‑Im under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging Ex‑Im failed to follow required procedural reviews (Section 7 ESA consultation and NHPA considerations).
The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding Plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to show redressability — Ex‑Im’s financing was a small part of project funding and projects would likely proceed without it.
On appeal Defendants argued the case was moot because both loans were fully disbursed and one loan was repaid; Plaintiffs argued procedural‑injury standing could be enough and that relief might still be possible.
The Ninth Circuit held the case was not moot but affirmed the district court: Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the redressability requirement for standing, even under the relaxed standard for procedural‑rights claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness: has post‑judgment development (loan disbursements, repayment, project completion) rendered the appeal moot?	Repayment/disbursement does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of judicially redressing harms; contractual relationships might allow relief.	Project completion and loan repayment end any meaningful relationship; court cannot grant effectual relief.	Case not moot: Defendants failed to meet heavy burden to show impossibility of any effective relief given gaps in the record (loan contracts absent).
Standing / Redressability for procedural‑rights claims under ESA/NHPA	Procedural‑injury doctrine requires only that a procedural right, if honored, could protect plaintiffs’ concrete interests; a court order could lead Ex‑Im to impose or renegotiate conditions that would ameliorate harms.	Ex‑Im provided only minority financing and projects were well underway; other financiers and ECAs could and would have funded projects, so vacating/altering Ex‑Im action would not redress harms.	Plaintiffs lack standing: even with the relaxed procedural‑injury standard, they failed to show a non‑speculative chance that Ex‑Im’s compliance would alter third‑party conduct or redress injuries.

Cottonwood Envtl. Law Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 789 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2015) (procedural‑rights standing framework)
Timbisha Shoshone Tribe v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 824 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 2016) (appellate mootness and jurisdiction at all stages)
Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (2013) (case mootness requires impossibility of any effectual relief)
Knox v. Service Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298 (2012) (mootness/standing principles)
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements and burdens at successive stages)
Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (redressability and injury in environmental cases)
Public Citizen v. Dep’t of Transp., 316 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2003) (procedural‑injury redressability where agency can directly control third party)
Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Jewell, 749 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2014) (agency contract/renewal context and procedural claims)
Salmon Spawning & Recovery All. v. Gutierrez, 545 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff still suffers injury if relief cannot alter outcome)
Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 542 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2008) (redressability in challenges to agency regulatory action)