2:23-cv-03357
D.S.C.May 1, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs challenged the approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of the Point Farm Mitigation Bank (PFMB), covering over 2,000 acres on Wadmalaw Island, South Carolina.
- The PFMB project involved aquatic habitat restoration, with Plaintiffs claiming the approval violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), citing concerns over ownership, lack of threat to the marsh, and insufficient buffer zones.
- Plaintiffs argued the Corps’ actions allowed the sale of mitigation credits for areas already protected, setting an unlawful precedent.
- Defendants countered that Plaintiffs suffered no ongoing or redressable injury, especially since construction was complete and no personal or concrete harm persisted.
- The case reached cross-motions for summary judgment, requiring the Court to address standing before reaching the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Stuhr claimed injury from agency approval setting precedent, increased traffic, and threat of future development. | Corps argued no current/injurious harm after construction; injuries alleged are conjectural or related to environmental benefit, not harm. | No standing; case dismissed. |
| Legality of PFMB’s Approval | Approval was arbitrary/capricious as salt marsh not threatened and ownership unresolved. | Approval valid as plaintiffs did not suffer concrete injury; restorations were environmentally beneficial. | Not reached due to lack of standing. |
| Nationwide Permit 27 | Asserted permit unlawful due to controversy and not in public interest, referencing public/agency concern over ownership. | Permit proper; no redressable injury. | Not reached due to lack of standing. |
| Mootness via Construction Completion | Injuries continue due to potential operation/sale of credits for already-protected lands. | Construction is over; no continuing harm from completed actions. | Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements for injury in fact, traceability, and redressability)
- Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (environmental plaintiffs’ standing for aesthetic/recreational injury)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (speculative or future injury insufficient for standing)
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (requirements for Article III standing)