TIRN v. US Dept. of State
673 F.3d 914
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- TIRN, a non-profit, challenges State Department NEPA and ESA compliance in section 609(b)(2) country certifications under the turtle protection framework.
- Section 609(b)(2) prohibits shrimp imports unless the exporting country has a comparable turtle-protection program or similar conditions are met, as implemented by the State Department.
- Earth Island Institute sued previously over the 1991–1999 guidelines; Earth Island III addressed the guidelines’ compliance and the certification process.
- TIRN later filed a current suit alleging NEPA/ESA violations in the State Department’s ongoing certification process, arguing noncompliance in multiple years.
- The district court dismissed the current suit as res judicata, finding the claims arose from the same transactional nucleus of facts as the prior Earth Island litigation.
- On appeal, the question is whether the current NEPA/ESA claims are precluded under res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does res judicata bar the current NEPA/ESA challenge? | TIRN argues the claims involve different legal standards (NEPA/ESA) and ongoing certifications separate from prior guideline challenges. | The claims arise from the same nucleus of facts and could have been raised in the prior litigation, invoking res judicata. | Yes; res judicata bars the current NEPA/ESA claims. |
| Do the current claims arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts as prior Earth Island litigation? | The conduct differs (NEPA/ESA compliance in certifications vs. guideline promulgation), so there is a separate nexus. | The certifications relate to the same regulatory regime and turtle protection goals; the facts are overlapping and interconnected. | They arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts; preclusion applies. |
| Could TIRN have brought NEPA/ESA claims in the Earth Island actions? | TIRN could not have foreseen specific annual certifications in earlier years, so claims aren’t barred for not raising them sooner. | TIRN could have and should have raised NEPA/ESA challenges when it could have, given the ongoing conduct. | TIRN could have brought the NEPA/ESA claims in the earlier litigation; preclusion applies. |
| Does the sequence of related governmental conduct defeat res judicata where conduct is ongoing and similar in nature? | Even with ongoing conduct, different actions could present new harm not previously adjudicated. | Ongoing but sufficiently related conduct constitutes a single cause of action if arising from the same regulatory framework. | Ongoing but related conduct does not defeat res judicata here. |
Key Cases Cited
- ProShipline Inc. v. Aspen Infrastructures Ltd., 609 F.3d 960 (9th Cir.2010) (same transactional nucleus; requirement to join related claims)
- Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir.1982) (identity of claims factors for res judicata)
- United States v. Liquidators of European Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir.2011) (same evidence; transactional nucleus considerations)
- Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938 (9th Cir.2002) (same harm with different conduct does not defeat preclusion)
- Fund for Animals v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir.1992) (harm and standing considerations in relation to res judicata)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (U.S.2010) (standing and procedural rights must show concrete interest)