Western Energy Alliance v. Salazar
709 F.3d 1040
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- MLA, as amended by the Reform Act of 1987, authorizes the Secretary to lease lands containing oil or gas; the Reform Act added a 60-day issuance deadline after payment for leases in competitive bidding.
- Energy Companies were high bidders on 118 leases; they paid bonus, rent, and fees to BLM; protests were pending on all parcels.
- BLM deferred issuing the leases pending resolution of protests, often taking longer than 60 days due to protest complexity.
- Energy Companies sued under MLA, APA, Mandamus, and DJA, seeking issuance of all pending leases within 60 days of payment.
- District court held the 60-day provision mandates a decision within 60 days, and remanded to BLM to act within 30 days on withheld leases.
- On appeal, the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the administrative-remand rule, without addressing merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 226(b)(1)(A) mandate issuance of all leases within 60 days or merely require a decision within that period? | Energy argues the 60-day deadline is mandatory issuance. | Federal Defendants contend the Secretary retains discretion despite the Reform Act. | Court lacks jurisdiction to decide merits; remand rule applies. |
| Is the district court's remand order appealable under the administrative-remand rule? | Energy seeks immediate appellate review of the remand order. | Defendants invoke the administrative-remand rule to bar review of inaction-driven remands. | Appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the administrative-remand rule. |
| Do collateral-order or practical-finality exceptions permit immediate review of the remand order? | Energy may rely on collateral order or practical-finality to bypass remand rule. | No applicable exception; order is not collateral or practically final. | Neither collateral-order nor practical-finality doctrine applies; no jurisdiction to review now. |
Key Cases Cited
- Udall v. Tollman, 380 U.S. 1 (1965) (Secretary discretion under MLA preserved; no vested right upon payment)
- Justheim Petroleum Co. v. Dep’t of the Interior, 769 F.2d 668 (10th Cir. 1985) (Secretary not required to issue within a time limit in noncompetitive leasing)
- McDonald v. Clark, 771 F.2d 460 (10th Cir. 1985) (Secretary may withdraw a lease prior to issuance; no vested right before act)
- Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 1999) (text on mandatory language and shall in statutory context)
- Bender v. Clark, 744 F.2d 1424 (10th Cir. 1984) (administrative-remand rule; finality and remand review)
- Trout Unlimited v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 441 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2006) (exceptions to remand rule; pragmatic approach to finality)
- SUWA v. Kempthorne, 525 F.3d 966 (10th Cir. 2008) (urgency and finality considerations in remand contexts)
- Graham v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 501 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. 2007) (practical finality concept and flexibility in finality analysis)
- Boughton v. Cotter Corp., 10 F.3d 746 (10th Cir. 1993) (prudential limits of practical finality and remand review)
- Miami Tribe of Okla. v. United States, 656 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2011) (urgency and finality in remand contexts; appellate review considerations)
- Lakes Pilots Ass’n, Inc. v. U.S. Coast Guard, 359 F.3d 624 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (finality and remand review; agency action reviewability)
- Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 870 F.2d 1515 (10th Cir. 1989) (remand review and finality principles in MLAs context)
- United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600 (1989) (statutory interpretation and mandatory language considerations)