Opinion ID: 6341391
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First-Party Redressability

Text: To establish redressability, a plaintiff must prove “a likelihood that the requested relief will redress the alleged injury.” Steel Co. v. Cit. for Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103 (1998). In Steel Co. the Court held the plaintiffs did not meet the redressability requirement for standing to bring a claim under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-ToKnow Act because they did not allege an ongoing injury that could be remedied by the injunction they had requested. Id. at 105-06, 108. Similarly, here, the plaintiffs did not allege that a favorable decision would cause the NMFS to redress their alleged injuries. Their prayer for relief requests an order declaring the NMFS violated the Administrative Procedure Act and vacating its March 10, 2017 non-enforcement decision and the policy underlying that decision. In the March 10 email conveying that decision, the NMFS said it “will not be enforcing the necropsyrelated provisions of the permit.” The permit referenced in the email is Number 774, which was issued to SeaWorld in 1992. The “policy” underlying the email is based upon the advice of the agency’s counsel that the 1994 amendments to the MMPA shifted the enforcement of permit conditions to the APHIS. The plaintiffs make no allegation addressing the likely effect of a favorable ruling upon the behavior of the NMFS. Even their arguably relevant allegations are oblique at best: They state only that some permit holders continued to submit necropsy reports to the NMFS after 1994 because the agency did not announce until 2017 its position that the 1994 amendments terminated its ability to enforce its permit conditions. The MMPA is permissive on its face: The NMFS “may” enforce permit conditions; it is not required to do so. See 16 7 U.S.C. § 1374(e)(1) (“The Secretary may modify, suspend, or revoke in whole or in part any permit issued by him under this section.”). The plaintiffs cite one provision of the statute that requires the NMFS to act, but it is not helpful to their case because it simply directs the agency, when first issuing a permit, to specify “any other terms or conditions which the Secretary deems appropriate.” 16 U.S.C. § 1374(b)(2)(D). Therefore, it is of no moment whether, as the plaintiffs contend, the 1994 amendments to the MMPA did not extinguish the NMFS’s ability to enforce its permit conditions, because the NMFS has prosecutorial discretion not to enforce them. Nor do the plaintiffs allege any reason to believe the NMFS would enforce the permit conditions if the plaintiffs received all the relief they requested, namely an injunction requiring the agency to rescind its interpretation of the MMPA or declaratory relief that the agency’s interpretation of the statute is unreasonable. Consequently, it seems the plaintiffs’ claimed injury is not judicially redressable and they do not have standing to pursue their complaint. The plaintiffs, however, citing Competitive Enterprise Institute v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (CEI), 901 F.2d 107, 117-118 (D.C. Cir. 1990), argue a plaintiff “need not prove that granting the requested relief is certain to redress their injury.” True enough, for certainty is not the lot of man, and no court would require it. In CEI the petition alleged that “if [the agency] had adequately assessed the safety impacts of the [relevant] standards, it would have been likely to conclude that its proposed standards were too high.” Id. at 118. That allegation was all the more plausible because the agency there had “already shown a willingness to entertain comments on the potential effects of a standard lower than 26 mpg, the low end of the range it originally proposed.” Id. 8 CEI is clearly not controlling here; that redressability is established where a remand would likely result in a favorable exercise of agency discretion does not help the plaintiffs because they did not plausibly plead that relief is indeed likely. See National Wrestling Coaches Ass’n v. Dep’t of Educ. (NWCA), 366 F.3d 930, 938-39 (D.C. Cir. 2004). They did not allege, even on information and belief, that the NMFS was likely to enforce the terms of the permit against SeaWorld or, for that matter, that SeaWorld composed or submitted any reports after 1994. The plaintiffs also point, quite mistakenly, to Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 518 (2007), to argue they have standing “if there is some possibility that the requested relief will prompt the injury-causing party to reconsider the decision that allegedly harmed the litigant.” Of course, there is some possibility the NMFS would oblige the plaintiffs, but that is not the standard they must meet. As the Court clearly explained in Massachusetts v. EPA, immediately after the passage the plaintiffs quote: “It is of considerable relevance that the party seeking review here is a sovereign State and not . . . a private individual.” 549 U.S. at 518. “States are not normal litigants for the purposes of invoking federal jurisdiction,” and therefore are “entitled to special solicitude in our standing analysis.” Id. at 518, 520; see also New Jersey v. EPA, 989 F.3d 1038, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (holding New Jersey’s quasi-sovereign interests in reducing air pollution justified its standing to challenge an EPA rule). The plaintiffs here are not states and hence are not entitled to special solicitude as to standing. Therefore, the plaintiffs fail to allege any facts from which we could infer the relief they seek would likely cause the NMFS to redress their alleged harms. But wait, there’s more! 9