859 F. Supp. 2d 83
D.D.C.2012Background
- Petitioners: WildEarth Guardians, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife; sued under APA against Secretary Salazar and BLM Director, with Wyoming and industry intervenors.
- BLM denied petition to recertify Powder River Basin as a coal production region under 43 C.F.R. § 3400.5; petition filed Nov. 23, 2009.
- This action challenges BLM’s denial; cross-motions for summary judgment addressed standing, not merits.
- Powder River Basin previously decertified in 1990, shifting leasing to the leasing-by-application process; Powder River region has since been managed as decertified.
- Court considers whether plaintiffs have Article III standing; court dismisses for lack of standing without addressing merits.
- Procedural posture includes agency record and prior rulings that the action is jurisdictionally challenged due to standing limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do plaintiffs have standing to sue? | Plaintiffs claim procedural, informational, or substantive standing. | Defendants argue lack of injury in fact and redressability for all theories. | Plaintiffs lack standing; action dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Procedural standing satisfied under the record? | Plaintiffs rely on denied procedural rights if Basin recertified. | No procedural injury shown; BLM complied with required notice and grounds. | Procedural standing not established. |
| Informational standing to obtain agency information? | Disclosures of long-range analyses would follow recertification. | No statutorily mandated disclosure rights shown; information not directly entitled. | Informational standing not established. |
| Substantive standing due to aesthetic/recreational impacts? | Guardians’ members would be harmed by pollution/climate effects. | Remedy here would be remand; redressability is speculative due to multi-step process. | Substantive standing not established. |
| Redressability linkage between petition denial and relief? | Remand could lead to recertification and reduced leasing impacts. | Recertification would trigger numerous contingent steps by multiple actors. | No likelihood that court-ordered relief would redress injuries. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (establishes irreducible standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2009) (procedural standing relaxed standards for procedural rights)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Gutierrez, 532 F.3d 913 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (judicial review of agency discretion and standing considerations)
- National Parks Conservation Ass’n v. Manson, 414 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (procedural standing frameworks and environmental standing concepts)
- FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1998) (informational standing as a narrow, statutory-right concept)