A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling limiting environmental organizations' ability to challenge U.S. Forest Service regulations.
The five-judge majority ruled that five environmental groups lacked legal ability – or "standing" – to challenge Forest Service regulations exempting salvage-timber sales of 250 acres or less from statutory environmental review provisions because the organizations could not show they suffered concrete harm from the exemptions. In a dissent by Justice Stephen Breyer, the four-judge minority characterized the ruling as "counterintuitive."
Five environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club and Earth Island Institute, filed a lawsuit in late 2003, after the Forest Service exempted a 238-acre timber sale in California's Sequoia National Forest from the typical public notice, review and appeal procedures contained in federal statutes. The Bush administration had enacted Forest Service regulations exempting salvage-timber sales of 250 acres or less and fire-rehabilitation projects of less than 4,200 acres from normal reviews. The Burnt Ridge project involved salvage logging in a portion of the national forest that had burned in 2002.
The organizations and the Forest Service settled the dispute over Burnt Ridge when the Forest Service halted the timber sale and promised to permit public comment if the project returned. Still, the organizations wanted to press their claims regarding six other Forest Service regulatory exemptions that did not apply to Burnt Ridge. A District Court judge permitted the lawsuit to proceed, and in 2005 invalidated five of the exemptions and issued a nationwide injunction against their application. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later ruled that the exemptions not at issue in Burnt Ridge were not "ripe" for judicial review (Earth Island Inst. v. Ruthenbeck, 490 F.3d 687 (2007)). Still, the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court's ruling on two exemptions regarding prior notice and comment, and appeals procedures that were applicable to Burnt Ridge.
The issue for the Supreme Court, then, was whether the organizations had standing to challenge any of the Forest Service's exemptions.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the organizations could demonstrate standing only if the challenged regulations would have a particular, concrete effect on the groups. Once the groups settled the Burnt Ridge dispute, though, the groups could not make that showing, according to Scalia, who was joined by the usual group of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy.
"We know of no precedent for the proposition that when a plaintiff has sued to challenge the lawfulness of certain action or threatened action but has settled that suit, he retains standing to challenge the basis for the action (here, the regulation in the abstract), apart from any concrete application that threatens imminent harm to his interests," Scalia wrote.
Scalia said that affidavits from group members – which explained the members' interests in national forests and how they would be harmed if the exemptions remained in place – that were filed after the Burnt Ridge settlement were submitted too late to establish standing. Scalia thought little of the affidavits anyway, writing, "Accepting an intention to visit the national forests as adequate to confer standing to challenge any government action affecting any portion of those forests would be tantamount to eliminating the requirement of concrete, particularized injury in fact."
In a dissent joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Breyer said the majority was setting the bar unreasonably high for plaintiffs. He noted that the Forest Service had admitted it planned to exempt thousands of salvage-timber sales in the near future.
"The court," wrote Breyer, "holds that the Sierra Club and its members (along with other environmental organizations) do not suffer any ‘concrete injury' when the Forest Service sells timber for logging on ‘many thousands' of small (250-acre or less) woodland parcels without following legally required procedures – procedures which, if followed, could lead the Service to cancel or to modify the sales. Nothing in the record or the law justifies this counterintuitive conclusion."
According to Breyer, there was no basis for the court to ignore group members' affidavits, which, he wrote, "adequately show a ‘realistic threat' of injury to plaintiffs brought about by reoccurrence of the challenged conduct – conduct that the Forest Service thinks lawful and admits will reoccur."
The ruling pleased private logging companies and the American Forest and Paper Association, but it was unclear what the Obama administration thought. It was the Bush administration that sought review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, and the case was argued last October.
Environmentalists, who had received amicus support from California Attorney General Jerry Brown, said that future lawsuits would have to contain more detail about specific harm resulting from challenged regulations.
The Case: Summers v. Earth Island Institute, No. 07-463, 09 C.D.O.S. 2568. Filed March 3, 2009. The Lawyers: For Summers: Edwin Kneedler, Department of Justice, (202) 514-2203. For Earth Island Institute: Matt Kenna, Western Environmental Law Center, (970) 385-6941.
A Butte county landowner who claimed that flood control measures undertaken and approved by Butte County amounted to inverse condemnation had all of his arguments rejected by the Third District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the strict liability standard that applies in most inverse condemnation cases does not apply in the flood control context. Instead, the court determined a rule of reasonableness applied to the claims, and the landowner did not prove that the county acted unreasonably.
A state appellate court has upheld a Santa Clara Valley Water District rate increase as exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, rejecting multiple arguments from a retail water company that the increase was subject to environmental review.
The City of Stockton had no right to take private property on which it later built a minor league baseball stadium, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. "This is a case of ‘condemn first, decide what to do with the property later," Justice Kathleen Butz wrote for the unanimous three-judge appellate panel.
The California Supreme Court has upheld three timber harvest plans that an appellate court had found to be in violation of the state Forest Practices Act and the California Department of Forestry's functional equivalent of the California Environmental Quality Act. The state high court ruled the analysis of cumulative impact on two rare species was adequate, as was an analysis of likely herbicide use.
The Humboldt County district attorney cannot sue Pacific Lumber Company for allegedly submitting false information during the state's processing of an environmental impact report and sustainable logging plan, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The court ruled that the district attorney's lawsuit was blocked by a section of the state Civil Code and by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which protects lobbying and petitioning activities. The court did not rule on the legitimacy of Pacific Lumber's allegedly fraudulent statements.
Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court."
A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay.
The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP).
A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment.
A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set back a plan to develop the country's largest solid waste landfill near Joshua Tree National Park. The court ruled that the environmental analysis for the project was inadequate and that the Bureau of Land Management undervalued land it would provide to the landfill developer.
A state appellate court has struck down a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for an air district rule permitting new power plants to offset emissions by paving roads. The court found that the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District did not have adequate evidence to support its finding that the rule could not have a negative impact on the environment.