Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

Plaintiff Lacked Standing to Challenge Implementation
of Livestock Protection Program

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In San Juan Audubon Society v. Wildlife Service, 257 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D.D.C. 2003), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the summary judgment motion of Wildlife Services (WS) of the Animal and Plant Health and Inspection Service (APHIS). Plaintiffs, wildlife preservation groups, sued WS for alleged violations of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) for its failure to follow regulations when implementing the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) livestock-protection program. The court held that the group members lacked standing, and therefore the plaintiffs lacked associational standing to bring the instant lawsuit on behalf of their members.

Background

WS was responsible for administering a program to protect livestock and endangered species from predators. Id. at 135. One of the procedures WS utilized in carrying out its responsibility involved the M-44 cyanide-ejector device. Id. The device was placed in the ground to attract animals and, when triggered, exploded a sodium cyanide capsule into the face of the animal, usually causing death. Id. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) utilized the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to restrict use of the device. Id. Use Restriction No. 9 stated that M-44 devices "shall not be used in areas where federally listed threatened or endangered animal species might be adversely affected . . ." and "APHIS personnel who place the M-44 devices in the ground shall be issued a map, prepared by or in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which clearly indicates such areas." Id. at 135-36. The plaintiffs sued WS for failing to provide such personnel with maps of the threatened or endangered species areas. Id. at 136. Instead of protecting the intended species, the plaintiffs claimed the devices put them at risk and even killed a number of them. Id. On April 11, 2000, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against WS alleging that the defendant had violated the APA. Id.

Arguments

The plaintiffs asserted a procedural-rights challenge under the APA, claiming that the defendant failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Use Restriction No. 9. Id. at 138. The defendant motioned for summary judgment. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

Before addressing the merits of the plaintiffs' petition, the court discussed the elements of constitutional standing. Id. at 136-37. It also reminded the plaintiffs that a showing of standing was an essential and unchanging predicate to its exercise of jurisdiction in the instant case, and that the plaintiffs carried the burden of establishing standing. Id. at 137. Because the plaintiffs were associations, they could only demonstrate standing if their members would have standing to sue in their own right, the interests that the plaintiffs sought to protect were germane to their purposes, and neither the claims asserted nor the relief requested required the participation of plaintiffs' individual members. Id. Because the plaintiffs failed to allege specific facts to show a substantial probability that the defendant's actions could cause injury to their members individually, the court found that the members lacked standing. Id. at 138. Therefore, plaintiffs lacked associational standing. Id.

The case was decided on March 31, 2003.