Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Federal Housing Finance Agency
815 F. Supp. 2d 630
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- NRDC sues OCC and FHFA alleging July 6, 2010 Bulletin and July 6, 2010 Statement violated APA and NEPA by halting and stalling PACE program development.
- Bulletin labeled as Supervisory Guidance and issued without notice, comment, or environmental review.
- FHFA issued the July 6 Statement expressing safety and soundness concerns about first-lien PACE; directed Enterprises to take prudential actions.
- Enterprises later announced they would not purchase mortgages with first-lien PACE obligations; FHFA issued further guidance (Letter) on Feb. 28, 2011 reaffirming stance.
- NRDC asserts procedural and substantive injuries to itself and its members; defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- Court analyzes constitutional standing, zone-of-interest under HERA, and the FHFA’s conservatorship powers under 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NRDC has standing to sue on behalf of members | NRDC members have redressable injuries if Bulletin vacated | Redressability hinges on banks resuming PACE; non-party banks control outcome | NRDC lacks standing; injuries not likely redressed by relief |
| Whether NRDC has procedural-injury standing against OCC | Procedural injuries from compelled actions and lack of public comment support standing | Redressability remains contingent on banks; procedural injury insufficient | NRDC lacks standing; procedural-injury theory fails |
| Whether FHFA’s Letter is a lawful exercise of conservatorship power vis-à-vis §4617(f) anti-injunction bar | Letter exceeds statutory authority and is subject to judicial review | Letter is a valid conservatorship action; §4617(f) bars review | Court lacks jurisdiction under §4617(f); complaint against FHFA dismissed |
| Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction or should dismiss for lack of final agency action or zone-of-interest considerations | Bulletin/Statement are final agency actions; NRDC is within zone of interest | Even if final actions, §4617(f) precludes review; zone-of-interest issues foreclosed | Dismissals granted on jurisdictional grounds; no need to reach final-action or zone-of-interest questions |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (procedural injury standing; redressability considerations)
- Pitt News v. Fisher, 215 F.3d 354 (3d Cir.2000) (redressability in association standing; non-party effects)
- Town of Babylon v. FHFA, 790 F.Supp.2d 47 (E.D.N.Y.2011) (anti-injunction and conservatorship context; actions within powers)
- Kuriakose v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co., 674 F.Supp.2d 483 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (FHFA conservatorship powers; lack of jurisdiction when acting within authority)
- Volges v. Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 50 (2d Cir.1994) (anti-injunction provisions and conservatorship context)