70 F.4th 1212
9th Cir.2023Background
- Gray wolves were extirpated from Washington but began recolonizing; Eastern Washington wolves are delisted federally but remain state-endangered.
- Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife may, in its discretion, lethally remove wolves after documented livestock depredations and failed non-lethal measures; lethal removals occur case-by-case.
- The U.S. Forest Service manages grazing on the Colville National Forest by issuing permits and adopted a revised forest plan in 2019 affecting grazing authorizations (including a 2020 authorization to Diamond M Ranch).
- WildEarth Guardians and two conservation groups sued the Forest Service under NEPA and NFMA, alleging the Service failed to analyze or mitigate grazing practices that increase wolf-livestock conflicts and thereby lead to lethal wolf removals.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Service for lack of Article III standing, concluding that lethal removals are discretionary actions of the state Department (a third party); the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing — causation and redressability (traceability to Service grazing decisions) | WildEarth: grazing decisions increase depredations, which will cause the state Dept. to lethally remove wolves, injuring WildEarth members; changing grazing would reduce removals. | USFS: lethal removals are discretionary acts by WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, not regulated or controlled by USFS; harms are caused by an independent third party, so traceability/redress fail. | Held: No standing. The lethal removals cannot fairly be traced to USFS grazing decisions, nor redressed by changing those decisions because removals result from independent state action. |
| Procedural-injury standing under NEPA (relaxed causation/redressability) | WildEarth: procedural harms from NEPA/NFMA violations suffice; plaintiffs need not prove the agency would have reached a different substantive result. | USFS: even for procedural claims, when injury arises from a third party’s actions, plaintiffs must show the defendant had coercive/regulatory control such that remedial process would likely prevent the harm. | Held: Procedural-right relaxation does not save standing here; WildEarth failed to show likelihood that following proper procedures would prevent the independent third-party lethal removals. |
| Whether USFS exerts determinative/coercive effect or participates in lethal removals | WildEarth: grazing choices are at least a substantial factor motivating lethal removals; NEPA compliance could lead to mitigation that influences state action. | USFS: it neither regulates lethal removals nor participates in them; it lacks authority over state lethal-removal decisions and does not coerce the Department. | Held: USFS does not have regulatory authority or integral participation sufficient to show coercive/determinative effect; thus traceability/redressability fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury, traceability, redressability)
- Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (no standing for injuries resulting from independent third-party action)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (agency action must have determinative/coercive effect to establish traceability to third-party conduct)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (procedural-right deprivation without concrete interest is insufficient for standing)
- ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 (no standing when injury depends on unfettered choices of independent actors)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. Export-Import Bank of the U.S., 894 F.3d 1005 (procedural injury standards explained; plaintiff must still show nexus to threatened interest)
- Western Watersheds Project v. Grimm, 921 F.3d 1141 (standing where agency participated in lethal removals directed by a state)
- WildEarth Guardians v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 795 F.3d 1148 (standing where federal agency and state cooperated to lethally remove wildlife)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 807 F.3d 1031 (agency agreements regulating third parties can establish traceability)