883 F.3d 895
D.C. Cir.2017Background
- The Ambassador Bridge (private, in operation since 1929) connects Detroit and Windsor; the owner (Company) planned a privately built Twin Span to facilitate maintenance.
- In 2012 Michigan officials and the Government of Canada executed a Crossing Agreement to build a new government bridge within two miles of the Ambassador Bridge; the Secretary of State approved under 33 U.S.C. § 535a and issued a Presidential Permit under § 535b/Exec. Orders.
- The Company sued in D.D.C., asserting nine counts including nondelegation (Count 1), claims that federal action violated its statutory/contractual rights and made the Twin Span economically impossible (Counts 2–3), APA review of the Presidential Permit (Count 6), and that the Secretary’s approval violated Michigan law and thus the APA (Count 7).
- The district court dismissed seven counts and granted summary judgment for federal defendants on one count; this appeal challenges dismissal of Counts 1, 2, 3, 6 and summary judgment on Count 7.
- The D.C. Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed: it rejected the nondelegation challenge, held plaintiffs’ exclusivity/contract claims insufficient, concluded the Presidential Permit decision is unreviewable in this foreign-affairs context, and found the Secretary did not clearly err in relying on Michigan legal advice when approving the Crossing Agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nondelegation (Count 1): whether § 3 of the IBA unlawfully delegates Compact Clause authority without an intelligible principle | § 3 gives the Secretary uncontrolled discretion over approval of interstate international-bridge agreements; lacks intelligible principle | Delegation is cabined by context: limited to international bridges crossing U.S.-Canada/Mexico waters and review for foreign-policy impact; foreign-affairs delegations may be broader | Rejected plaintiff’s nondelegation claim; delegation constitutional when read in statutory context and foreign-affairs setting |
| Statutory/contractual exclusivity (Counts 2–3): whether Congressional acts granted Company an exclusive/right to build Twin Span or protect its profitability | Congressional authorizations, appropriations, and reports show intent to preserve Company’s right to build/operate Twin Span and protect investments; new bridge thwarts Congress’s intent and makes Twin Span infeasible | Congressional statutes and history do not create an exclusive, perpetual profitability right; public grants do not pass implied exclusivity | Dismissed Counts 2–3; no express or implied exclusive right shown |
| Reviewability of Presidential Permit (Count 6): whether issuance by Secretary is reviewable agency action under APA | The Secretary’s issuance is final agency action reviewable under the APA despite Presidential involvement | Permit decision concerns foreign policy committed to Executive discretion; even if agency action, it is committed to agency discretion by law and not reviewable | Dismissed Count 6; permit decision not judicially reviewable in this context |
| Secretary’s approval under § 3 and reliance on Michigan law (Count 7): whether Secretary failed to inquire into or wrongly assessed state-law authority, making approval arbitrary and capricious | The Secretary failed adequately to investigate Michigan-law infirmities; letters relied on were conclusory and insufficient | Secretary solicited and relied on authoritative legal advice from Governor’s counsel and Deputy AG; IBA doesn’t require a deeper state-law probe; no clear error shown | Affirmed summary judgment for defendants on Count 7; Secretary did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in approving Crossing Agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (agency arbitrary-and-capricious standard)
- Bowman Transp. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., 419 U.S. 281 (Pursuant to State Farm, reviewing agency clear error of judgment)
- Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (nondelegation doctrine and intelligible principle requirement)
- Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (broader deference in foreign-affairs delegations)
- Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (invalid delegation where statute supplies no standards)
- Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (public grants do not imply exclusive rights)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (limits on judicial review of Presidential action)
- TOMAC v. Norton, 433 F.3d 852 (upholding delegation where statute delimits area and purpose)
- Dist. No. 1, Pac. Coast Dist., Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Ass’n v. Marine Admin., 215 F.3d 37 (foreign-policy judgments not fit for judicial review)