In re: Idaho Conservation League
421 U.S. App. D.C. 52
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- CERCLA §108(b) requires EPA to promulgate financial responsibility rules; EPA delayed for decades.
- Six environmental groups petitioned for mandamus to force EPA to issue rules by 2016 for four identified industries; EPA announced a framework for hardrock mining rules.
- Parties filed a joint motion on consent to set a rulemaking schedule for hardrock mining and a process to consider other industries.
- Judge initially ordered framework and conference; joint motion supersedes further mandamus relief.
- Court must address standing and intervene-tion issues to grant the consent order and schedule; court grants consent motion.
- Court notes EPA retains discretion to decide whether to regulate other industries and that the order does not pre-commit final rule content.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners have standing to obtain a consent-order rulemaking | Idaho Conservation League member faces ongoing and imminent injuries | Standing requires concrete injury and causation; injuries shown are not sufficiently concrete | Yes; at least one petitioner has standing for hardrock mining standing sufficient for relief |
| Whether petitioners have standing to seek rulemaking schedule for other industries | Members harmed by lack of financial assurance in remaining industries | Standing for procedural relief requires concrete imminent harm; schedule is connected to relief | Yes; procedural relief with redressable impact supports standing for schedule relief |
| Whether intervenors have Article III standing to intervene | Intervenors claim harms from consent order schedule | Consent order does not bind them; lack of standing defeats intervention | No; proposed intervenors lack Article III standing and permissive intervention is inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (U.S. 2009) (CERCLA precedent on timely cleanup and responsible parties)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 360 F.3d 188 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (EPA authority to compel cleanups and response actions)
- Sierra Club v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 292 F.3d 895 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (Associational standing and injury in fact)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (S. Ct. 2013) (Imminent injury and standing burden)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 504 U.S. 560 (1992) (Article III standing and causation rules)
- Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Hodel, 839 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (Agency assessments supporting standing theory)
- Sugar Cane Growers Co-op. of Fla. v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 89 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (Procedural relief linked to substantive relief adequate)
- WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell, 738 F.3d 298 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Procedural relief connected to substantive outcome sufficient)
- Perciasepe v. 714 F.3d 1317, 714 F.3d 1317 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Intervention standing requirements for consent orders)