Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Biosecurity
Sovereign Immunity & Lack of Standing Bar
Plaintiffs' Environmental Challenges
Walt McCarterNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Save Lake Superior Association v. Napolitano, No. 08-CV-1173 (JMR/RLE), 2009 WL 690089 (D. Minn. Mar. 12, 2009), the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota held that plaintiff environmental organizations lacked standing to challenge the government defendants' conduct because the plaintiffs had failed to allege an "injury in fact," and further held that the claims were barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Background
Environmental organizations concerned with the spread of a fish virus into Lake Superior brought this action against several government agencies and officials, alleging that the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had "failed to enforce" federal regulations, including the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 8301-8320, and orders in violation of the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA), Minn. Stat. § 116B.01. Id. at *1. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Id.
Arguments
The plaintiffs argued that the government was not shielded from their MERA claims by sovereign immunity because the defendants had failed to enforce the law, and were thus acting ultra vires. Id. at *2. The plaintiffs also alleged a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing that the defendants had "arbitrarily and capriciously refused to enforce their own rules." Id. at *3 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 706).
Analysis and Holdings
The court noted that the plaintiffs had not provided any authority that the defendants were required to comply with MERA, and moreover, the plaintiffs were alleging that the defendants' inaction (rather than affirmative misconduct) was the basis of their complaint. Id. at *2. The court clarified that "[t]his is not a claim of defendants acting beyond their power; rather, it is a claim they have erred in its exercise," and such claims are barred by sovereign immunity. Id.
Regarding the plaintiffs' APA claims, the court explained that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2), it lacked authority to review "agency action committed to agency discretion by law." Id. at *3. Upon finding that the Coast Guard and APHIS had absolute discretion in interpreting and enforcing the relevant regulations, the court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs' APA claims. Id. at *3-5.
Lastly, the court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims because the fish virus was not currently present in Lake Superior, thus there had been no actual harm, and plaintiffs had failed to allege facts showing that imminent harm would occur due to the defendants' conduct. Id. at *6. Therefore, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of standing. Id. at *7.
The case was decided on March 12, 2009.