Swanson Group Mfg. LLC v. Sally Jewell
416 U.S. App. D.C. 166
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- BLM manages ~2.4 million acres in western Oregon under the O&C Act, which requires lands be managed for sustained yield and that timber be sold at least at the annual productive capacity (implemented by BLM as "allowable sale quantity").
- Roseburg and Medford district allowable sale quantities: 45 million and 57.1 million board feet; from FY2004–2010 actual sales averaged ~43% (Roseburg) and ~56% (Medford) of those quantities.
- Five plaintiffs (two timber companies and three timber organizations) sued in 2010 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that BLM violated the O&C Act by failing to offer 80% of allowable sale quantities annually (FY2004–2010) and challenging the OEM (an ESA planning methodology) under the APA for lack of notice-and-comment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, enjoined BLM to sell the declared annual sustained yield, and vacated the OEM; the Secretaries appealed.
- On appeal the D.C. Circuit reviewed standing de novo and concluded the plaintiffs failed to carry their burden to show Article III standing based on the record before the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for O&C Act claim | Companies contend BLM’s reduced sales caused present and imminent economic harm (mill closure, lost profits, reduced margins) and seek injunctive relief to compel sales | Secretaries argue plaintiffs failed to present evidence in the district court showing concrete, imminent injury fairly traceable to BLM and redressable by court order | Plaintiffs lack Article III standing; summary judgment vacated and case remanded with instruction to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction |
| Use of post-judgment declarations to cure standing | Companies submitted later declarations to amplify standing facts | Defendants contend new declarations cannot be considered on appeal to cure defects at time of judgment | Court rejected post-judgment declarations; standing must be shown as of time of judgment |
| Organizational standing for timber associations | Orgs argue members are primarily purchasers of O&C timber and therefore organizations are injured | Defendants note orgs failed to identify particular injured members or show member injury traceable to BLM conduct | Organizations failed to show member injury; no organizational standing |
| Standing for procedural APA challenge to OEM | Companies argue OEM (and FWS guidance) has been used to exclude acreage from sale planning, causing injury and entitling them to vacatur/remedy | Defendants argue plaintiffs did not show ongoing or likely future injury from OEM use, nor link OEM to specific Biological Opinions or consultations harming them | Procedural claim also lacks standing because plaintiffs failed to show a causal, likely future injury tied to the OEM |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (standing burden and elements outline)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (standing must exist at time of judgment; post-judgment evidence cannot cure defect)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (requirements for proving injury and causation)
- Mountain States Legal Found. v. Glickman, 92 F.3d 1228 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (example of sufficient standing where specific past harms were detailed)
- Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, 642 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (heightened burden for injunctive relief; speculative harms insufficient)