National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Environmental Protection Agency
415 U.S. App. D.C. 191
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Trade groups challenged EPA/Army Corps 2008 TNW determination labeling Santa Cruz River reaches as traditional navigable waters.
- Home Builders I held lack of standing; case dismissed for want of a cognizable injury and lack of final agency action.
- JDs (jurisdictional determinations) distinguish preliminary (advisory) vs approved (final) and affect regulatory exposure.
- TNW Determination is internal agency action that could influence site-specific JDs and permits, but not alone bind landowners absent site actions.
- In 2013 Home Builders refiled with new declarations; district court again found no Article III injury or final agency action subject to APA review.
- Court applied issue preclusion and the curable defect exception to bar relitigation of standing from Home Builders I.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether issue preclusion bars relitigation of standing | Home Builders: standing cured by new facts post-Home Builders I. | Agency actions and preconditions not cured; no new injury. | Issue preclusion bars re-litigation of standing. |
| Whether Home Builders satisfied Article III injury under the curable defect exception | Developers now allege new injuries and relevance of preliminary/approved JDs show harm. | New declarations fail to show injury of the required type or imminence; no cured defect. | Curable defect exception not satisfied; no standing. |
| Whether the TNW Determination constitutes final agency action for APA review | TNW Determination is final and injures developers by increasing regulatory exposure. | TNW Determination alone did not bind landowners without site-specific JD actions. | Court did not address final agency action given standing dismissal. |
| Whether Home Builders have representational standing to challenge agency rulemaking | As representatives of regulated parties, they have standing to challenge rules affecting members. | Standing requires concrete, particularized injury; prior ruling foreclosed it without new cure. | Regulated-party standing insufficient under curable defect rule; not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 667 F.3d 6 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (precedent on standing and TNW/Navigability framework)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2009) (standing requires actual and imminent injury; not conjectural)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (basics of standing: injury, causation, redressability)
- Dozier v. Ford Motor Co., 702 F.2d 1189 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (curable defect exception to issue preclusion)
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (U.S. 2008) (issue preclusion and related doctrines in preclusive effects)
- GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (jurisdictional claims and preclusion principles)
- CropLife Am. v. EPA, 329 F.3d 876 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (standing for regulated parties in agency challenge)
- CTS Corp. v. EPA, 759 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (standing analysis in regulatory challenges)