Western Watersheds Project v. Debra Haaland
20-5081
| D.C. Cir. | Jun 18, 2021Background
- In 2008 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) adopted a resource management plan (RMP) for an area of Nevada that directed removal of all wild horses from the area because habitat was insufficient.
- BLM began implementing the RMP with a roundup in October 2009 and acknowledged multiple gathers likely would be needed to reach the zero-horse goal.
- Some horses remained after 2009; BLM decided on another roundup in April 2018.
- Conservation groups sued in June 2018 to stop the 2018 roundup; the district court granted summary judgment to BLM.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding plaintiffs’ challenge was time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) because the cause of action accrued in 2009 when BLM first implemented the RMP.
- The court also rejected plaintiffs’ reopening-doctrine theory and deemed other appellate arguments forfeited for inadequate briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the claim accrue for § 2401(a)? | Accrual occurred when later roundups (e.g., 2018) caused injury; suit timely. | Accrual began when BLM first implemented the 2008 RMP in 2009. | Accrual in 2009; six-year limitations expired in 2015; 2018 suit untimely. |
| Was the 2008 RMP a final agency action? | RMP not final until implementation or later rounds. | RMP was final agency action that ended decisionmaking. | RMP was final agency action. |
| Does the reopening doctrine restart the limitations period? | Subsequent gathers or BLM statements reopened review, restarting accrual. | No serious, substantive reconsideration occurred; reopening inapplicable. | Reopening doctrine does not apply. |
| Were the plaintiffs’ other claims preserved on appeal? | Plaintiffs raised other claims below and meant to pursue them. | Plaintiffs failed to meaningfully brief them on appeal. | Other claims forfeited for inadequate briefing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hardin v. Jackson, 625 F.3d 739 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (accrual under § 2401(a) occurs on date of final agency action)
- Federal Express Corp. v. Mineta, 373 F.3d 112 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (limitations clock begins when claim ripens)
- Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (land-use plans bind agency and inconsistent actions may be set aside)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (final agency action when decisionmaking ends and legal consequences flow)
- Ohio Forestry Ass'n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (1998) (claim ripens when agency implements a plan)
- Alliance for Safe, Efficient & Competitive Truck Transportation v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 755 F.3d 946 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (reopening doctrine requires serious substantive reconsideration)
- Government of Manitoba v. Bernhardt, 923 F.3d 173 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (arguments inadequately briefed on appeal are forfeited)