Sierra Club v. United States Department of Agriculture
716 F.3d 653
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- Intervenor Sunflower appeals district court remand related to NEPA EIS for Sunflower expansion project.
- Service approved loans and approvals for a Holcomb, Kansas coal-fired plant; EIS was prepared for 1980 loan.
- 2002 restructuring created Sunflower Electric Power Corp; Sunflower needed Service approval for expansion actions.
- Between 2005–2007, Service approved multiple expansion-related agreements; 2007 Kansas air quality permit denial hindered expansion.
- 2009 settlement with Kansas for expansion of a single plant; Sunflower did not seek Service approval for that settlement.
- District court found actions were major federal actions requiring an EIS, granted Sierra Club summary judgment, issued remand and injunctions; Sunflower and Service appealed; court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Sunflower’s appeal proper under 28 U.S.C. §1291 given a remand order? | Sunflower argues remand order is final due to immediacy of impact. | Service/ Sierra Club argue remand is not a final order; collateral order doctrine does not apply to private parties. | No jurisdiction under §1291; remand is not a final decision for private parties. |
| Does §1292(a)(1) authorize immediate appeal where injunction is limited and directed at the agency? | Sunflower contends injunction creates immediate reviewable affect. | Injunction serves no function beyond remand; not appealable by private party. | Injunction serves no independent function beyond remand; appeal dismissed under §1292(a)(1) to the extent it seeks immediate review. |
| Can Sunflower appeal be treated as collateral to service actions or as ministerial remand where agency actions remain possible on remand? | Remand order connotes irretrievable harm if not immediately reviewable. | Remand contemplates future agency actions; not a final ministerial decision. | Collateral order doctrine does not apply; remand remains non-final for private parties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pueblo of Sandia v. Babbitt, 231 F.3d 878 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (remand orders generally not final; avoid piecemeal appeals)
- N.C. Fisheries Ass’n v. Gutierrez, 550 F.3d 16 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (limited collateral-order exception for private parties not satisfied)
- Lakes Pilots Ass’n, Inc. v. U.S. Coast Guard, 359 F.3d 624 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (collateral order doctrine not extended to remand orders)
- NAACP v. U.S. Sugar Corp., 84 F.3d 1432 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (illustrates the general rule against piecemeal review)
- Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. SEC, 873 F.2d 325 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (collateral-order doctrine limited; private party not generally allowed immediate review)
- Pit River Tribe v. USFS, 615 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2010) (remand for EIS not a final decision allowing private appeal)
- Izaak Walton League of America v. Kimbell, 558 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2009) (remand for EIS not subject to §1291 appeal by private party)
- County of Los Angeles v. Shalala, 192 F.3d 1005 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (treats limited injunctions within remand as non-appealable)
- Sierra Club v. Dep’t of Agric. (Sierra Club II), 841 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D.D.C. 2012) (district court's injunctive relief limited to remand context)