367 F. Supp. 3d 219
S.D. Ill.2019Background
- In Oct. 2017 EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a Directive and Memorandum restricting individuals who currently receive EPA research grants from serving on EPA federal advisory committees; it exempted state, tribal, and local grantees and included aspirational diversity/rotation goals.
- NRDC alleges the Directive was a pretext to remove academic and non‑profit scientists and replace them with industry‑affiliated members, degrading scientific integrity and skewing committee balance.
- NRDC sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging the Directive was arbitrary and capricious, violated statutory committee composition requirements, reversed prior agency policy without explanation, and was issued without required notice-and-comment.
- EPA moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing, and also raised ripeness and non‑reviewability arguments; both parties moved for summary judgment on the merits (which the court did not reach).
- The court limited its review to standing and held NRDC lacked Article III standing at the time the suit was filed; dismissal was without prejudice and merits motions were denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | NRDC: organization and members suffered concrete injuries (organizational diversion, reputational harm, lost professional opportunities, procedural injury) from Directive | EPA: NRDC and members lack concrete, particularized, and imminent injuries at filing; some alleged harms occurred after suit was filed | Court: NRDC lacked Article III standing when suit was filed; dismissal without prejudice |
| Organizational injury standard | NRDC: Directive perceptibly impairs NRDC's mission to ensure scientific integrity | EPA: NRDC alleged only abstract interests; no diversion of resources shown | Court: NRDC's asserted injury was an abstract policy interest, not a concrete diversion of resources; insufficient |
| Reputational injury | NRDC: Directive disparages members by implying bias, causing reputational harm | EPA: harm is generalized to a class, not direct to specific individuals | Court: Allegations conclusory and generalized; no particularized reputational injury proved |
| Loss/opportunity to compete & timing | NRDC: members denied equal opportunity to serve or receive grants; some members lost positions or grants | EPA: loss of positions/grants occurred after filing; standing must exist at filing | Court: deprivation-of-competition can be cognizable, but NRDC failed to show imminence or actual loss at the time of filing for most members; post‑filing harms cannot establish standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000) (Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal standard)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (standing requirements and imminence)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (concrete and particularized injury requirement)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (three‑part standing test)
- Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) (associational standing requirements)
- Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (1976) (abstract interest insufficient for injury)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (organization must show concrete and demonstrable injury)
- Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1645 (2017) (standing must be shown for each claim and form of relief)