Scenic America, Inc. v. United States Department of Transportation
983 F. Supp. 2d 170
D.D.C.2013Background
- FHWA issued a 2007 Guidance interpreting FSA language to permit digital billboards in certain circumstances.
- FSAs generally restrict lighting on billboards and require FHWA approval to ensure FSA compliance; states risk funding cuts for noncompliance.
- Scenic America challenges the 2007 Guidance as violating the Administrative Procedure Act and Highway Beautification Act.
- Defendants and Intervenor move to dismiss, arguing lack of standing and lack of final agency action.
- Court finds Scenic America has standing due to concrete injuries to its programs from increased billboard proliferation.
- Court concludes the Guidance constitutes final agency action because it binds division offices and ends the agency’s decisionmaking on the issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue | Scenic America has concrete injuries to its activities | No cognizable injury beyond ideological objections | Scenic America has standing |
| Final agency action | Guidance consummates FHWA decisionmaking and has legal consequences | Guidance is not final agency action; discretion remains with Divisions | Guidance is final agency action |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (procedural rights alone do not establish standing)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (injury to organization’s activities acceptable where resources are diverted)
- Equal Rights Center v. Post Properties, Inc., 633 F.3d 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (organizational standing when activities are impaired by defendant's conduct)
- Center for Law and Education v. Dep’t of Educ., 396 F.3d 1152 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (standing lacking where injury is solely to advocacy activities)
- Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 643 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (guidance can be final action when it binds agency discretion)
- Center for Auto Safety v. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin, 452 F.3d 798 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (four-factor test for agency action finality)
- AT&T Co. v. EEOC, 270 F.3d 973 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (agency position can have final-action implications depending on context)
- Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (guidance context and binding effects relevant to finality)