Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Administrative Law
Plaintiffs' NEPA Claims Dismissed for Lack of Standing
Walt McCarterNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Goat Ranchers of Oregon v. Williams, No. 08-97-ST, 2009 WL 883581 (D. Or. Mar. 30, 2009), the United States District Court for the District of Oregon held that plaintiff environmental organizations' claims of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) violations were not redressable because the defendant agency did not have the authority and ability to redress the plaintiffs' alleged injuries.
Background
Plaintiff environmental groups brought this action challenging the decision of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's Wildlife Services to kill cougars pursuant to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's (ODFW) Cougar Management Plan (CMP). Id. at *1. The plan's proffered purpose was to reduce conflict between cougars and humans. Id. Wildlife Services had prepared an environmental assessment of the proposed action and made a finding of no significant impact, then entered into an agreement with the ODFW to kill cougars. Id. Oregon legislature then passed a law permitting the ODFW to use volunteer agents with dogs to pursue and kill cougars. Id. The plaintiffs filed suit challenging the adequacy of the environmental assessment, and sought to enjoin Wildlife Services from hunting the cougars. Id. at *2. A magistrate recommended that the defendant's motion to dismiss be granted because the plaintiffs' claims were not redressable, and submitted his findings to the district court. Id.
Arguments
The ODFW argued that the hunting of cougars would continue with or without Wildlife Services' involvement, and therefore the plaintiffs' claims were not redressable. Id.
Analysis and Holdings
The court explained that generally in NEPA cases, "a plaintiff need only show that the defendant agency did not follow NEPA's procedures and that it is possible the agency will change their course of action after undertaking NEPA's procedures." Id. However, that is presuming that the defendant agency has the authority and ability to redress the plaintiff's injury. See id. The court concluded that "under these particular facts, where ODFW has already killed several cougars without Wildlife Services, has shown its intent to kill cougars with or without Wildlife Services, and the state of Oregon has passed legislation enabling such hunting, this court must conclude that plaintiffs' claims are not redressable." Id. at *3.
The case was decided on March 30, 2009.