318 F. Supp. 3d 959
D.S.C.2018Background
- The EPA and Army Corps adopted the 2015 "WOTUS" rule clarifying the scope of "waters of the United States," replacing an earlier 1980s regulation.
- The Trump Administration issued Executive Order 13778 directing review of WOTUS; agencies published a "Suspension Rule" delaying the WOTUS rule for two years and reverting interim enforcement to the 1980s regulation.
- The Suspension Rule's notice-and-comment process limited public input to whether to delay the WOTUS effective date and excluded comments on the substantive merits of WOTUS or the 1980s regulation.
- Environmental plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing the Suspension Rule: (1) failed to provide meaningful notice and comment; (2) was arbitrary and capricious because agencies did not consider substantive implications; and (3) did not publish the regulatory text to be implemented.
- The court concluded the agencies violated the APA by preventing substantive comments (a meaningful opportunity to comment), vacated the Suspension Rule, and entered a nationwide injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Suspension Rule complied with APA notice-and-comment requirements | Agencies unlawfully limited comments to timing of a delay and refused to solicit or consider substantive comments on WOTUS or the 1980s regulation | The rule was a lawful suspension/delay and notice-and-comment occurred; litigation-related uncertainty justified the suspension | Held for plaintiffs: the content restriction made the comment opportunity not "meaningful," violating the APA; Suspension Rule vacated |
| Whether agencies acted arbitrarily and capriciously by not considering substantive implications | Failure to consider merits of reinstating the 1980s regulation was arbitrary given the practical change in legal definitions | The Suspension Rule merely delayed WOTUS and preserved regulatory status quo while further rulemaking occurred | Held for plaintiffs: agencies did not provide reasoned analysis or meaningful consideration, so action was arbitrary and capricious |
| Appropriate scope of relief (nationwide injunction) | Nationwide relief is necessary because plaintiffs and harms are nationwide and the challenge is facial to agency action | Relief should be geographically limited | Held for plaintiffs: nationwide injunction appropriate to provide complete relief given the nationwide effect and facial APA challenge |
| Whether this decision requires resolving merits of WOTUS | Plaintiffs argue WOTUS better effectuates Clean Water Act goals; this is part of broader litigation | Government and business groups contest WOTUS merits | Court declined to decide merits; decision limited to procedural APA violations in adopting Suspension Rule |
Key Cases Cited
- N. Carolina Growers' Ass'n, Inc. v. United Farm Workers, 702 F.3d 755 (4th Cir. 2012) (suspension/reinstatement of regulations is rulemaking requiring meaningful notice-and-comment)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (agency changes require reasoned analysis; arbitrary and capricious standard)
- Prometheus Radio Project v. F.C.C., 652 F.3d 431 (3d Cir. 2011) (scope of notice must permit meaningful public criticism)
- Int'l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554 (4th Cir.) (district courts may craft nationwide injunctive relief when relief is necessary to remedy violation)
- Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979) (scope of injunctive relief dictated by extent of established violation)