Gvt. Province of Manitoba v. David Bernhardt
923 F.3d 173
| D.C. Cir. | 2019Background
- The Northwest Area Water Supply Project will divert Missouri River water via pipeline to communities in northwest North Dakota; Reclamation (DOI) is the federal agency overseeing the Project.
- NEPA review has spawned long-running litigation: prior suits by the Province of Manitoba and Missouri led to remands and issuance of an EIS and later a Supplemental EIS.
- Missouri sued Reclamation under the APA, alleging NEPA violations and asserting harms to Missouri and its citizens from the river withdrawals.
- Missouri proceeded solely on a parens patriae theory of standing in district court (alleging quasi-sovereign harms to its residents and some asserted state interests).
- The district court dismissed for lack of standing; Missouri appealed. The D.C. Circuit reviewed standing de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Missouri has Article III standing to sue (direct injury) | Missouri alleged direct harms to state property, navigation, and borders from water diversion. | Reclamation argued Missouri forfeited any direct-injury claim by not developing it below. | Forfeited: Missouri failed to develop or present evidence of a direct-injury theory at summary judgment. |
| Whether a State may sue the federal government as parens patriae under the APA | Missouri argued the APA authorizes States to bring parens patriae suits against federal agencies. | Reclamation argued the Mellon bar forbids parens patriae suits by States against the federal government, and the APA does not displace that bar. | Mellon bar applies to APA suits; the APA does not evince congressional intent to abrogate Mellon. |
| Whether Massachusetts v. EPA created an exception to the Mellon bar | Missouri read the footnote in Massachusetts v. EPA as carving out an exception when a State asserts rights under federal statutes. | Reclamation said Massachusetts did not create a parens patriae exception; it involved Massachusetts' own landowner injury and special solicitude. | No exception: Massachusetts v. EPA did not overrule or create a Mellon exception for parens patriae suits against the federal government. |
| Whether Missouri established a cognizable quasi-sovereign interest to proceed parens patriae | Missouri asserted quasi-sovereign interests in citizens' health/welfare and state interests affected by diversion. | Reclamation maintained that even asserted quasi-sovereign injuries cannot bypass Mellon when suit is against the federal government. | Missouri lacks parens patriae standing under Mellon; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592 (1982) (defines quasi-sovereign interests for parens patriae standing)
- Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923) (establishes rule that a State generally cannot sue the federal government as parens patriae)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (State standing principles; court clarified it asserted its own injury and did not create a Mellon exception)
- Maryland People’s Counsel v. FERC, 760 F.2d 318 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (discusses when Congress can authorize parens patriae suits and distinguishes statutes that expressly permit such suits)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (articulates Article III standing requirements)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (discusses the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing)