Lakes & Parks Alliance of Minneapolis v. Fed. Transit Admin., 928 F.3d 759

Background

The Metropolitan Council (Council) planned the Southwestern Light Rail Transit Project (SWLRT), including routing through the Kenilworth Corridor; the project required municipal consent under Minnesota law and federal environmental review because of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding.
Lakes and Parks Alliance of Minneapolis (LPA), a local nonprofit, sued the Council and the FTA in 2014 alleging NEPA, MEPA, and municipal-consent violations while the Council’s EIS was still in preparation.
The district court dismissed most claims and the FTA (sovereign immunity), but allowed a narrowly tailored NEPA claim against the Council based on Fourth Circuit precedent in Limehouse aimed at preventing state actions that would ‘‘eviscerate’’ federal remedies.
The Council completed the final EIS in May 2016 and the FTA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in July 2016; the district court later granted summary judgment to the Council, finding no irreversible commitment before the end of environmental review.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit held that NEPA does not itself create a private cause of action outside the APA, rejected importing Limehouse here (no federal defendant, different timing, and Eighth Circuit precedent), and concluded the LPA lacked a viable claim and that any Limehouse-style relief is moot after the ROD.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NEPA or 40 C.F.R. § 1506.1(a) creates a private right of action against the Council	LPA: An implied cause (Limehouse-style) exists to stop state action that would eviscerate federal review	Council: NEPA provides no private right; only APA review of final agency action is available	Held: No private NEPA cause of action against a state agency; regulations cannot create one (Alexander v. Sandoval)
Whether Limehouse justified a pre-ROD suit against the Council to preserve a federal remedy	LPA: Limehouse permits procedural NEPA suits against state actors to preserve status quo pending federal review	Council: Limehouse inapposite—there the federal agency remained a party and the timing/facts differ	Held: Limehouse does not apply here given the absence of a federal defendant and controlling Eighth Circuit precedent
Whether issuance of the ROD moots any live controversy	LPA: Pursued narrow procedural claim despite ROD; sought relief based on alleged prior irreversible commitments	Council: ROD renders any attempt to preserve future federal remedy moot; without FTA the Council cannot invalidate the ROD	Held: After ROD, no live controversy remains; claim is moot and jurisdiction is lacking
Whether the district court erred by deciding the merits despite jurisdictional defects	LPA: District court properly preserved narrow NEPA remedy and decided merits	Council: District court lacked jurisdiction to imply a private remedy and should have dismissed	Held: Eighth Circuit reverses and remands with instructions to dismiss for lack of a viable cause of action/jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (statutory text required to create private right and remedy)
Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560 (1979) (regulations cannot create private rights beyond statute)
Limehouse v. S.C. State Ports Auth., 549 F.3d 324 (4th Cir. 2008) (permitting suit to prevent state action that would eviscerate federal NEPA remedy)
Sierra Club v. Kimbell, 623 F.3d 549 (8th Cir. 2010) (NEPA does not provide a private cause of action)
Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 446 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2006) (APA is the proper vehicle for review of final agency action)
Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (1978) (NEPA is procedural, setting goals for agency process)
Goos v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 911 F.2d 1283 (8th Cir. 1990) (NEPA focuses on federal government activity, not solely state/local decisions)
Carson v. Pierce, 719 F.2d 931 (8th Cir. 1983) (federal courts lack power to decide moot or non-live controversies)