Montana Environmental Information Center v. Stone-Manning
766 F.3d 1184
9th Cir.2014Background
- MEIC sued Stone-Manning, in her official capacity, challenging a pending Area B Rosebud Mine permit under SMCRA.
- SMCRA establishes cooperative federalism and Montana regulates non-federal lands with federal approval; Montana also has a cooperative agreement for federal lands within the state.
- MEIC contends Stone-Manning must withhold approval until a CHIA is made and the mining operation is designed to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area.
- MEIC alleges a pattern of approving permits without CHIA compliance by Stone-Manning and predecessors and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to compel compliance with subsidiary duties.
- The district court dismissed the case under FRCP 12(b)(1)/(6) and 12(c), and MEIC appealed arguing the claims are ripe.
- The panel affirmed the dismissal, holding the claims were not ripe and that the firm prediction rule does not apply here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are MEIC's claims ripe for review? | MEIC argues CHIA duties render an imminent injury from potential approval. | Stone-Manning argues no imminent injury; no substantial risk of approval yet. | Claims not ripe; no substantial risk of approval. |
| Does the firm prediction rule apply to MEIC's case? | MEIC relies on the firm prediction rule to establish a justiciable controversy. | Stone-Manning contends the rule does not apply or is not satisfied here. | Rule not satisfied; cannot predict inevitable approval. |
| Do MEIC's members have standing given ripeness concerns? | MEIC would represent members harmed by future mining. | No injury in fact or imminent injury to members; standing lacking. | No standing due to lack of imminent injury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envt'l Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing and ripeness principles for environmental suits)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (injury in fact required for standing)
- Colwell v. HHS, 558 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2009) (ripeness focuses on concrete legal issues in actual cases)
- Braren, United States v. Md. Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 338 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2003) (controlling test for declaratory judgments in ripeness context)
- Freedom to Travel Campaign v. Newcomb, 82 F.3d 1431 (9th Cir. 1996) (firm prediction framework applied to contingency of benefits)
- Immigrant Assistance Project of L.A. Fed'n of Labor v. INS, 306 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2002) (firm prediction doctrine applied to agency policies on applications)
- Reno v. Catholic Social Servs., 509 U.S. 43 (1983) (origin of the firm prediction concept)
- Reg'l Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102 (1974) (inevitability language related to firm predictions)
- SBA List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (2014) (injury in fact and redressability concerns in standing)