293 F. Supp. 3d 1062
N.D. Cal.2018Background
- In Jan 2017 EPA issued a strengthened rule regulating Restricted Use Pesticides (the "Pesticide Rule") with an effective date of March 6, 2017 and a three‑year implementation schedule requiring States to submit revised certification plans by March 4, 2020.
- Beginning Jan 26, 2017 EPA issued multiple actions delaying the Rule's effective date without notice-and-comment rulemaking; only one four‑day comment opportunity was later offered for a May 2017 delay.
- Plaintiffs (farmworker unions and advocacy groups) sued seeking declaratory relief that EPA's delays violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), vacatur of the delay rules, and a declaration that the Pesticide Rule went into effect on March 6, 2017.
- Plaintiffs submitted evidence that their members are exposed to RUPs and that EPA's delays threaten both substantive protections and force advocacy groups to divert resources (injury in fact and procedural injury from lost notice-and-comment opportunity).
- EPA argued the delays did not change the implementation schedule and thus caused no cognizable injury, and invoked the APA "good cause" exception for bypassing notice-and-comment.
- The Court concluded Plaintiffs have standing and that EPA violated the APA by delaying the effective date without notice and comment; it vacated the final rules purporting to delay the effective date and declared the Pesticide Rule effective March 6, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue | Plaintiffs and members face imminent risk from delayed implementation of protections; also procedural injury from lost notice-and-comment | No injury because implementation schedule unchanged; protections still will be in place per schedule | Plaintiffs have standing — both substantive threat and procedural injury upheld |
| Whether EPA's delays constituted rulemaking requiring notice-and-comment | Delays effectively amend or suspend the rule and required APA procedures | Delays were administrative and justified by "good cause" to allow review and prevent confusion | Delays were substantive action; APA notice-and-comment required |
| Validity of EPA's invocation of "good cause" exception | Good cause inapplicable to a new administration's desire to review/possibly revise prior rule | EPA needed time for review; preventing confusion justified exception | "Good cause" too narrow here; mere desire to review does not excuse APA procedures |
| Remedy: vacatur and declaration of effective date | Vacatur of delaying rules and declaration that rule became effective March 6, 2017 | Argued implementation schedule unchanged; offered non‑binding in‑litigation assurance | Court vacated the delay rules and declared Rule effective March 6, 2017; rejected belated litigation assurances |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Mundell, 572 F.3d 756 (9th Cir.) (standing is threshold jurisdictional question)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. 2016) (Article III standing framework)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S.) (standing test articulated)
- Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.) (delaying a rule's effective date can amount to substantive revision requiring APA compliance)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (U.S.) (APA treats subsequent agency action revising prior action like initial rulemaking)
- United States v. Valverde, 628 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir.) (narrow scope of the APA "good cause" exception)
- Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938 (9th Cir.) (credible threat of harm can satisfy injury for standing)
- In re Zappos.com, Inc., 884 F.3d 893 (9th Cir.) (standard for threatened future injury)
- Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, 341 F.3d 961 (9th Cir.) (procedural injury and standing to challenge agency rulemaking)