514 F.Supp.3d 290
D.D.C.2021Background
- The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WHA) directs BLM to maintain Appropriate Management Levels (AMLs) on Herd Management Areas (HMAs) and to remove excess animals, using a prioritized approach (humane destruction of sick/old, capture for adoption, then destruction if needed).
- Between 2017–2018, BLM issued four HMA "Gather Decisions" (Pine Nut Mountains, Muddy Creek, Eagle Complex, Onaqui) authorizing initial gathers, use of fertility controls, and potential follow-up/maintenance gathers over a 10-year period; the Decisions did not commit to additional NEPA analyses before future gathers.
- Initial gathers have been completed: Muddy Creek achieved its AML target; Pine Nut, Eagle, and Onaqui did not reach target removals. Most initial gathers began more than 76 days after their Decisions.
- Friends of Animals (FOA) sued, alleging violations of the WHA, APA (arbitrary and capricious departure from policy), and NEPA (failure to prepare EIS and to take a "hard look"). Parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
- The court denied both summary judgment motions without prejudice, finding genuine issues of material fact as to justiciability: (1) possible mootness of challenges to already-completed initial gathers (uncertainty whether horses could be returned or whether relief is possible), and (2) ripeness of challenges to future gathers authorized for ten years (speculative timing, contingent on monitoring, funding, logistics, and possible future NEPA).
- The court instructed the parties that BLM may seek dismissal as non-justiciable or the parties may renew motions once factual matters (e.g., notice practice, whether contraceptives will be administered without gathering, availability of returning horses) are clarified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of challenges to completed initial gathers | FOA: challenges to initial gathers remain live; court can order return of horses; broader plan continues through 2027 so injury persists | BLM: initial gathers are completed and judicial relief (e.g., return) is unavailable; challenges to past actions are moot | Court: Genuine factual dispute (e.g., whether horses can be returned) prevents summary judgment; denies motions without prejudice on mootness ground |
| Ripeness of challenges to future gathers/10-year authorization | FOA: Decisions authorize ongoing roundups and fertility measures without fresh NEPA, depart from prior policy/land-use plans, and rely on stale information | BLM: Future gathers are speculative and contingent on monitoring, funding, logistics, and possible future NEPA; agency discretion remains to decide case-by-case | Court: Claims about future gathers are not ripe on current record (fitness and hardship favor postponement); denies summary judgment without prejudice |
| NEPA (need for EIS / "hard look") | FOA: BLM should have prepared an EIS and taken a hard look at cumulative, long-term impacts of repeated gathers and fertility control over 10 years | BLM: EA/FONSI for the Decisions is adequate; future actions will be assessed as needed; additional NEPA may occur before future gathers | Court: Did not reach the merits; left unresolved because of justiciability concerns; merits deferred for later proceedings |
| WHA / APA (statutory compliance and arbitrary departure) | FOA: BLM departed from land-use plans, prior litigation positions, and statutory requirements by authorizing long-term gathers without updated information | BLM: Decisions follow WHA framework and are subject to monitoring and future determinations; agency discretion preserved | Court: Did not decide merits; decline to adjudicate now due to unresolved mootness/ripeness issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989) (NEPA requires agency to take a "hard look" at environmental consequences)
- National Park Hospitality Ass'n v. Department of the Interior, 538 U.S. 803 (2003) (ripeness doctrine balances fitness and hardship; avoid premature review)
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) (party seeking summary judgment must establish no genuine issue of material fact, including justiciability)
- Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (ripeness prevents courts from resolving abstract disagreements over administrative policies)
- Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) (APA claims typically not ripe until agency applies regulation in a concrete way)
- Fund for Animals, Inc. v. BLM, 460 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (interpreting WHA and BLM authority over wild horses and burros)
- Friends of Animals v. Haugrud, 236 F. Supp. 3d 131 (D.D.C. 2017) (similar challenge; court dismissed parts as unripe where future gathers were speculative)