Opinion ID: 41259
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: This Court has jurisdiction over an appeal from a final judgment of the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See also Sierra Club I, 526 F.3d at 1358 (discussing the Court’s jurisdiction over the original appeal). 8 Although Sierra Club acknowledges that this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal of the district court’s order, it contends that the Court should defer ruling pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Specifically, Sierra Club requests that the Court defer ruling until the Corps concludes its ongoing administrative review and makes a final determination whether to reissue the permits based on a supplemental environmental impact statement. “The primary jurisdiction doctrine is . . . concerned with protecting the administrative process from judicial interference.” Boyes v. Shell Oil Prods. Co., 199 F.3d 1260, 1265 (11th Cir. 2000). Primary jurisdiction “is a doctrine specifically applicable to claims properly cognizable in court that contain some issue within the special competence of an administrative agency. It requires the court to enable a ‘referral’ to the agency, staying further proceedings so as to give the parties reasonable opportunity to seek an administrative ruling.” Reiter v. Coopper, 507 U.S. 258, 268, 113 S. Ct. 1213, 1220 (1993). “‘[T]he main justifications for the rule of primary jurisdiction are the expertise of the agency deferred to and the need for a uniform interpretation of a statute or regulation.’” Boyes, 199 F.3d at 1265 (quoting County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 907 F.2d 1295, 1310 (2nd Cir. 1990)); see also United States v. Western Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 59, 64, 77 S. Ct. 161, 165 (1956). 9 Sierra Club has not demonstrated the applicability of the primary jurisdiction doctrine to this case. Moreover, deferring to the Corps does not advance the basic purposes of the doctrine because the specialized knowledge of the Corps is not needed to answer the questions before the Court, and deferral is not necessary for a uniform interpretation of the regulations and statutes at issue. See Western Pac. R.R., 352 U.S. at 64, 77 S. Ct. at 165 (“In every case the question is whether the reasons for the existence of the doctrine are present and whether the purposes it serves will be aided by its application in the particular litigation.”). Accordingly, the Court declines to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in this case and will not defer its ruling pending a determination by the Corps as to whether it will reissue the permits.