## Facts

- Coleman Station, a hamlet in the Town of Northeast, Dutchess County, New York, was nominated in 1993 for listing on the New York State Register of Historic Places and, at the same time, for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
- The state nomination was handled through New York’s historic preservation program, which forwarded the nomination to the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places (Keeper), an official within the National Park Service (NPS).
- The NPS published notice that the property was under consideration, and Coleman Station was listed on the National Register in 1993.
- Moody Hills Farms Limited Partnership and related landowners (Moody) operated or owned agricultural property within or near the Coleman Station area; they opposed the historic-district designation and contended it was sought by neighboring landowners hostile to Moody’s composting activities.
- Moody challenged the state-register listing in a New York Article 78 proceeding.
- The New York court annulled the state-register listing based on state-law procedural defects in the state process (including notice and documentation requirements), rather than on a federal determination about eligibility under National Register standards.
- After the state annulment, Moody petitioned the Keeper to remove Coleman Station from the National Register.
- The Keeper denied the petition, explaining that (1) Coleman Station met the criteria for National Register listing and (2) defects in the state listing process did not, by themselves, invalidate the federal listing; the Keeper reviewed the materials bearing on federal eligibility.
- Moody sued the Department of the Interior/NPS in federal district court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing the refusal to delist was arbitrary and capricious and that the state annulment required delisting because the state and federal criteria were the same.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Moody on the APA claim, reasoning that the state annulment automatically voided the federal listing and that the state procedural problems “tainted” the federal nomination; the NPS appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a state-court annulment of a state historic-register listing for state procedural errors automatically requires the Keeper to remove the same district from the National Register of Historic Places.
2. Whether the Keeper acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the APA by refusing to delist Coleman Station despite the state annulment and the asserted defects in the state nomination process.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the district court.
- The court held that the National Register is a federal program and the Keeper has federal authority to decide eligibility and continued listing; a state annulment based on state procedure does not automatically cancel a federal listing.
- The court rejected the view that state procedural defects necessarily carried over to the federal listing, where federal regulations supply the governing process for National Register listing and removal.
- The court concluded the Keeper’s refusal to delist was not arbitrary and capricious under the APA because the Keeper could rely on an evaluation of the district’s eligibility under federal criteria even after the state listing was annulled.
- The case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the federal defendant.

## Legal Principles

- The National Register of Historic Places is administered under federal statute and federal regulations; state historic-preservation programs participate in nominations, but they do not control the Keeper’s federal listing determinations.
- A state court’s annulment of a state-register listing for violations of state procedural rules does not, without more, require removal from the National Register.
- Under APA review, a court asks whether the agency considered the relevant factors and reached a reasoned decision; the agency does not act arbitrarily and capriciously merely by declining to treat a state procedural ruling as dispositive of a federal listing decision.
- Similarity between state and federal historic-listing criteria does not make state eligibility or state procedural compliance a condition of federal listing or continued listing.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that the Keeper could maintain Coleman Station’s National Register listing even after a New York court annulled the parallel state-register listing for state procedural errors, because the National Register is governed by federal authority and the Keeper’s refusal to delist was not arbitrary and capricious under the APA.


Moody Hills Farms Limited Partnership v. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 205 F.3d 554 (1999)