Elk Run Coal Company, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor
804 F. Supp. 2d 8
D.D.C.2011Background
- Six underground coal mine operators challenge MSHA and the Mine Act over ventilation-plan approval disputes; they allege due process violations and ultra vires/APA challenges; the Act creates mandatory standards and an enforcement regime administered by MSHA with a separate Review Commission; there is no explicit pre-adoption dispute mechanism in the statute, though MSHA policy documents describe a potential “technical violation” route to contest plan provisions; the court discusses Thunder Basin and other authorities to determine if constitutional challenges lie outside the exclusive administrative review; the court ultimately upholds jurisdiction for facial and pattern-and-practice due process claims but dismisses several counts as beyond the court’s purview or as inappropriate for review under the APA/ultra vires theory; Counts III and V survive, Counts I, II, IV, and VI are dismissed, and Counts VII (Declaratory Judgment Act) may survive depending on the remaining proceedings; the memorandum concludes with the disposition and a schedule for responsive pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Mine Act’s exclusive review scheme precludes district-court review of the plaintiffs’ due process challenges. | Plaintiffs seek facial/pattern claims outside the Act’s review structure. | Act provides exclusive pre- and post-enforcement review via the Review Commission. | Jurisdiction exists for facial/pattern claims, not for single enforcement disputes. |
| Whether the plaintiffs’ claims are properly characterized as “wholly collateral” and thus outside the Mine Act scheme. | Claims challenge the Act and MSHA administration as a whole, not individual plan disputes. | Claims are pre-enforcement challenges tied to plan disputes; within Thunder Basin/TSH framework. | Claims are partly collateral and partly within agency review; facial/pattern claims proceed. |
| Whether the Mine Act is facially constitutional but the pattern-and-practice claims survive. | Pattern-and-practice deficiencies deprive operators of due process. | MSHA procedures and the “technical violation” route provide adequate process. | Facial challenge dismissed; pattern-and-practice claims survive to the extent pled. |
| Whether the APA and ultra vires claims are jurisdictionally viable or should be dismissed under Thunder Basin. | MSHA’s broad, programmatic denial of scrubbers and other devices constitutes final agency action. | No discrete final agency action identified; claims resemble programmatic challenges. | APA/ultra vires counts are dismissed as to final agency action; claims treated as inappropriately particularized. |
| Whether Counts III and V (pattern-and-practice due process) and related Declaratory Judgment Act claims are appropriately adjudicable in district court. | Pattern-and-practice claims are outside the Act and deserve district-court review. | Pattern-and-practice disputes fall under Commission expertise and exclusive review. | Counts III and V survive; Count VII potentially survives as related declaratory relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994) (pre-enforcement challenges to an exclusive review scheme can be barred; but collateral challenges may proceed)
- Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 130 S. Ct. 3138 (2010) (agency review not a bar to collateral constitutional challenges in some contexts)
- GE I (General Electric Co. v. EPA), 360 F.3d 188 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (facial challenges to agency regimes may be allowed separate from enforcement actions)
- GE II (General Electric Co. v. Jackson), 610 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (pattern-and-practice challenges to regulatory schemes outside direct UAO review)
- McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479 (1991) (supports collateral challenges to procedures outside singular applications)
- Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994) (establishes framework for distinguishing collateral vs. particularized claims in exclusive-review regimes)
- Zeigler Coal Co. v. Kleppe, 536 F.2d 398 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (educates on ventilation-plan disputes and review procedures under Mine Act)
- Peabody Coal Co., 111 F.3d 963 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (illustrates Commission handling of plan disputes and APA considerations)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (limits of Ex Parte Young in governing pre-enforcement challenges)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (foundational basis for suits challenging ongoing government actions without pre-enforcement penalties)