Opinion ID: 164231
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Case-Zablocki Claim

Text: 55 Appellants argue that the U.S. Air Force should have submitted its Agreement with the German Air Force to the Secretary of State for approval, as required for international agreements under the Case-Zablocki Act, 1 U.S.C. § 112b(c). As indicated above, the district court dismissed Appellants' claims in regard to the Case-Zablocki Act for lack of standing. We review questions of standing de novo. Kansas v. United States, 249 F.3d 1213, 1222 (10th Cir.2001). 56 According to Appellants, the district court improperly characterized their argument regarding the U.S. Air Force's failure to comply with the Case-Zablocki Act. They state that they do not assert an independent cause of action requiring standing under Case-Zablocki, but sought to make the district court aware that without a properly concluded International Agreement, there was no legal basis for the final NEPA analysis and ultimate ROD. Appellants' Br. at 55. Appellants cite no authority, nor have we discovered any, for their apparent suggestion that NEPA and its regulations require a reviewing court to consider whether an agency has a legal basis for the proposed action that triggered NEPA's requirements. Appellants' further contention that consultation with the Secretary of State would have allowed the Secretary to reject the Agreement and was thus properly part of the consideration of suitable alternatives under NEPA is without merit. 57 Moreover, we agree with the district court that the Case Zablocki Act itself creates no private right of action and that Appellants have no standing to challenge the U.S. Air Force's alleged violation of the Act under the APA. Assertion of a private right of action is clearly precluded by the Act's implementing regulation, which states that [d]eviation or derogation from the provisions of [the Act] will not affect the legal validity ... of agreements concluded, will not give rise to a cause of action and will not affect any public or private rights established by such agreements. 22 C.F.R. § 181.1(b). 58 In order to have standing to challenge a violation of the Case-Zablocki Act under the APA, Appellants would have to establish that they have suffered an injury that falls within the `zone of interests' sought to be protected by the Act. Mount Evans Co. v. Madigan, 14 F.3d 1444, 1452 (10th Cir.1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). `The essential inquiry is whether Congress intended for a particular class of plaintiffs to be relied upon to challenge agency disregard of the law.' Hernandez-Avalos v. INS, 50 F.3d 842, 847 (10th Cir.1995) (quoting Mount Evans Co., 14 F.3d at 1452). The Case-Zablocki Act is evidently meant to mediate between the foreign relations powers of Congress and the President. See Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 682 n. 10, 101 S.Ct. 2972, 69 L.Ed.2d 918 (1981). Congress clearly did not intend for any private individual to enforce the Act's provisions. 59 Having determined that Appellants have no standing to enforce the Case-Zablocki Act, we need not consider whether the Agreement did in fact constitute an international agreement subject to the Act's procedural requirements.