Sierra Club v. Sally Jewell
412 U.S. App. D.C. 171
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Blair Mountain Battlefield was historic site of 1921 labor conflict, later sought protection from surface mining.
- January 2009 SHPO nominated Battlefield for National Register listing; Keeper briefly listed it.
- SHPO later discovered additional objections from coal companies and delisted the Battlefield.
- Coalition sued interior defendants arguing Keeper’s delisting was arbitrary and capricious; district court granted summary judgment for Interior for lack of standing.
- This Court reverses, holding Coalition has standing to challenge delisting and that redressability and causation arguments are nonfrivolous.
- Central issue: whether WV mining laws and federal regulations would protect the Battlefield if relisted, affecting potential mining activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing: injury in fact | Coalition has concrete aesthetic/history injuries from mining. | Coalition lacks legally protected interest and injury not concrete. | Coalition has injury in fact. |
| Imminent injury | Permits near Battlefield create substantial probability of mining. | No mining occurred; injury not imminent. | There is substantial probability of imminent injury. |
| Causation and redressability | Relisting would trigger WV minimization protections reducing mining. | Relisting may not affect permits or mining protections. | Causation and redressability satisfied; relief possible. |
| West Virginia law interpretation | Minimization requirement applies to permit renewals and can be non-frivolous. | Interpreting WV law not necessary for standing; rely on federal law. | Coalition's WV-law interpretation is non-frivolous and supports standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2009) (aesthetic injury suffices for standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (injury must be concrete and particularized)
- Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2000) (injury and redressability framework for standing)
- National Wildlife Federation v. Hodel, 839 F.2d 694 (D.C.Cir. 1988) (standing via impairment of natural vistas near home)
- Cantrell v. City of Long Beach, 241 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2001) (injury may be observational from adjacent areas)
- Ark Initiative v. Tidwell, 749 F.3d 1071 (D.C.Cir. 2014) (jurisdictional questions tied to proper interpretation of law for standing)
- Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C.Cir. 2007) (reformulation of standing analysis)
- Info. Handling Servs., Inc. v. Def. Automated Printing Servs., 338 F.3d 1024 (D.C.Cir. 2003) (non-frivolous statutory interpretations can sustain standing)