Facts
- The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) managed large areas of federal public land, including lands previously withdrawn from settlement and mining pending classification.
- Over time, BLM reclassified and opened some withdrawn lands to private uses, including mining, as part of what National Wildlife Federation (NWF) described as a “land withdrawal review program.”
- NWF sued federal officials, alleging that roughly 1,250 BLM land-use decisions violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- Because FLPMA and NEPA do not provide an independent cause of action for NWF’s claims, NWF sought review under APA § 702.
- In opposing summary judgment, NWF relied primarily on affidavits from two members (Peterson and Erman) stating they used public lands “in the vicinity” of areas affected by certain BLM decisions; additional member affidavits were submitted after the summary-judgment hearing.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the government, finding the affidavits insufficient for standing and rejecting the late affidavits as untimely; the D.C. Circuit reversed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
- Whether NWF established standing under APA § 702 and Article III based on member affidavits claiming use of lands near areas affected by BLM decisions.
- Whether the APA permits review of an alleged agency “program” absent identification of specific “final agency action” reviewable under APA § 704.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to consider NWF’s additional affidavits submitted after the summary-judgment argument.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and reinstated judgment for the government.
- The Court held the Peterson and Erman affidavits did not establish a concrete, particularized injury tied to identifiable agency actions affecting those members.
- The Court held NWF’s suit was an impermissible “programmatic” challenge rather than a challenge to discrete, final agency action reviewable under APA § 704.
- The Court held the district court acted within its discretion in refusing to consider the late-filed affidavits at the summary-judgment stage.
- The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to establish standing.
Legal Principles
- APA § 702 requires a plaintiff to be adversely affected by “agency action” as defined by the APA; when the substantive statutes provide no independent cause of action, the challenged conduct must also qualify as “final agency action” under APA § 704.
- The APA does not authorize judicial review aimed at wholesale reform of an agency’s operations; review is limited to specific, identifiable agency actions.
- Article III standing requires a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the specific agency action challenged; generalized claims of environmental harm or use of lands “in the vicinity” are insufficient without specific facts connecting the plaintiff to the affected area and action.
- Organizational standing requires that at least one identified member have standing to challenge a particular agency action; standing cannot be asserted “in gross” to attack a broad set of actions.
- On summary judgment, a plaintiff must timely present specific facts establishing a genuine basis for jurisdiction; trial courts have discretion to reject late evidentiary submissions.
Conclusion
The Court held that APA review demands discrete, final agency action and that NWF failed to show member-specific injury connected to identifiable BLM decisions, making its broad challenge to an alleged land review “program” nonjusticiable and requiring dismissal for lack of standing.