959 F.3d 569
3rd Cir.2020Background
- The Delaware River Basin Compact created the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) and authorized it to review any “project having a substantial effect on the water resources of the basin.”
- In 2009 and 2010 the DRBC’s Executive Director issued Determinations asserting that horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in certain Basin areas required prior DRBC approval.
- Wayne Land & Mineral Group owns acreage in the Basin and sued the DRBC seeking a declaratory judgment that the DRBC lacks jurisdiction to review Wayne’s proposed fracking well pad (i.e., that Wayne’s activities are not a “project” under the Compact).
- Pennsylvania State Senators (Scarnati, Yaw, Baker) sought to intervene on Wayne’s side, later proposing two counts: (Count I) invalidate the DRBC “de facto moratorium”/declare the DRBC lacks authority to regulate fracking under the Compact; (Count II) order the DRBC to provide just compensation for a regulatory taking.
- The District Court denied the Senators’ intervention motion on Rule 24 grounds without resolving Article III standing; the Third Circuit vacated and remanded for the District Court to decide whether the Senators must demonstrate standing because they appear to seek relief different from Wayne.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a putative intervenor of right must demonstrate Article III standing when seeking relief beyond the plaintiff’s request | Senators: their Count I aligns with Wayne’s requested relief, so standing is not at issue | Town of Chester and opponents: intervenors seeking different or additional relief must show Article III standing | Intervenors seeking relief different from the plaintiff must demonstrate standing; the record suggests the Senators seek different relief, so the District Court should address standing first |
| Whether the Senators’ two proposed counts seek relief different from Wayne’s complaint | Wayne’s suit seeks a declaratory judgment focused on Wayne’s property and the DRBC’s authority under the Determinations/§3.8 | Senators’ Count I may seek broader relief (invalidate Determinations/ban DRBC moratorium generally); Count II seeks just compensation (a taking remedy) which Wayne did not seek | Count I is ambiguous (might be similar or broader); Count II clearly seeks different relief (monetary compensation), so Senators must establish standing as to Count II; remand for district court to resolve ambiguity and standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, 137 S. Ct. 1645 (2017) (intervenor must demonstrate Article III standing for each claim and form of relief sought that differs from the plaintiff’s)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (supreme court formulation of Article III standing elements)
- Davis v. Federal Election Comm’n, 554 U.S. 724 (2008) (standing must be shown for each form of relief sought)
- Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (1976) (Article III limits on federal-court power to grant relief)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (standing is a threshold jurisdictional requirement)
- Wayne Land & Mineral Grp. LLC v. Delaware River Basin Comm’n, 894 F.3d 509 (3d Cir. 2018) (remanded to district court for factfinding on whether DRBC’s project-review authority under the Compact unambiguously reaches Wayne’s activities)