National Association of Home Builders v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service
34 F. Supp. 3d 50
D.D.C.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (National Association of Home Builders, Olympia Master Builders, Home Builders Association of Greater Austin, Texas Salamander Coalition) sued to set aside two 2011 Service settlement agreements (Guardians Agreement and CBD Agreement) that establish deadlines to determine whether 251 candidate species should be listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
- Plaintiffs do not challenge any specific final listing rule; they challenge the Agreements’ timelines as causing procedural violations and injuries to their members (conservation efforts, property use, business operations).
- The Agreements require the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to make listing determinations on the 2010 candidate backlog by certain dates but do not dictate substantive listing outcomes.
- Some candidate species at issue (Mazama pocket gopher subspecies and four Texas salamanders) live on or could live on plaintiffs’ members’ land; FWS has already issued proposed and some final rules pursuant to the Agreements’ schedule.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing; plaintiffs asserted representational standing for their members based on three theories of injury: impaired conservation efforts, increased pre-listing regulatory restrictions, and statutory/procedural breaches by FWS.
- The court concluded plaintiffs’ standing arguments are indistinguishable from prior decisions and granted dismissal for lack of Article III standing; CBD’s motion to intervene was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Agreements cause concrete injuries to members (conservation, economic, procedural) | Agreements only set timelines and do not cause or dictate substantive outcomes; no traceable, redressable injury | No Article III standing; complaint dismissed |
| Alleged impairment of conservation efforts | Deadlines prevent adequate consideration of voluntary conservation plans, harming members' ability to avoid listings | Plaintiffs fail to show the Agreements caused or will cause rejection/discounting of conservation plans; timelines not shown inadequate | No standing — injury not fairly traceable to Agreements nor redressable by setting them aside |
| Increased pre-listing regulatory restrictions | Agreements prompted local authorities to impose stricter requirements, harming property/business use | Any local action was independent; plaintiffs fail to show determinative/coercive effect by FWS or that Agreements caused third‑party action | No standing — cannot trace injury to Agreements or show coercion of third parties |
| Alleged ESA procedural violations (preclusion finding, priority ranking, notice-and-comment, best-available-science) | Agreements circumvent Section 4 procedures and prioritization, and force decisions without required processes | Prior D.C. Circuit and district precedent reject these procedural claims; ESA does not create the procedural rights plaintiffs assert | No standing on procedural grounds; claims indistinguishable from precedents rejecting such challenges |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (alleged future harms must be certainly impending for standing)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (third-party/coercive-effect test for traceability of injury)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Perciasepe, 714 F.3d 1317 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (consent decree/timeline does not create standing absent substantive regulation)
- Safari Club v. Salazar, 704 F.3d 972 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (rejecting similar procedural-standing claims in ESA listing-timeline litigation)
- Bldg. Indus. Ass'n v. Norton, 247 F.3d 1241 (agency must use best available data; courts’ review limited in certain ESA contexts)
- Florida Audubon Soc. v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (procedural-rights standing requires that procedure protect a concrete interest and breach likely causes plaintiff's injury)