Legal Document

129 S. Ct. 1142 (2009) Priscilla SUMMERS, et al., Petitioners, v. EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE al. No. 07-463. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 8, 2008. Decided March 3, 2009. *1147 Edwin Kneedler, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. Matt Kenna, Durango, CO, respondents. Gregory G. Garre, Acting Solicitor General, Counsel Record, Department Justice, Scott L. Nelson, Public Citizen Litigation Group, DC, Respondents. Marc Kesselman, General Counsel, Thomas Millet, Associate Agriculture, Paul D. Clement, Ronald J. Tenpas, Assistant Attorney Deputy Malcolm Stewart, to the Katherine W. Hazard, Attorney, Justice SCALIA delivered opinion Court. Respondents are a group organizations dedicated protecting environment. (We will refer them collectively as "Earth Island.") They seek prevent States Forest Service from enforcing regulations that exempt small fire-rehabilitation and timber-salvage projects notice, comment, appeal process used by more significant land management decisions. We must determine whether respondents have standing challenge in absence live dispute over concrete application those regulations. I In 1992, Congress enacted Decisionmaking Appeals Reform Act (Appeals or Act), Pub.L. 102-381, Tit. III, § 322, 106 Stat. 1419, note following 16 U.S.C. 1612. Among other things, this required establish "proposed actions concerning activities implementing resource plans developed under Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 1974." Ibid. The Service's provided certain its procedures would not be applied considered categorically excluded requirement file an environmental impact statement (EIS) assessment (EA). 36 CFR §§ 215.4(a) (notice comment), 215.12(f) (appeal) (2008). Later amendments manual procedures, adopted rule after notice on areas less than 4,200 acres, salvage-timber sales 250 acres less, did cause thus EIS EA. 68 Fed.Reg. 33824 (2003) (Forest Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, ch. 30, 31.2(11)); Fed. Reg. 44607 (FSH 31.2(13)). This had effect excluding these process. summer 2002, fire burned area Sequoia National Forest. September 2003, issued decision memo approving Burnt Ridge Project, salvage sale timber 238 damaged fire. Pursuant categorical exclusion *1148 provide form consistent with Act, period public make available. December filed complaint Eastern District California, challenging failure apply Project (requiring prior (setting forth procedure). also challenged six were Project. irrelevant appeal. granted preliminary injunction against sale. Soon thereafter, parties settled their concluded "the is at issue case." Earth Island Inst. Pengilly, 376 F. Supp. 2d 994, 999 (E.D.Cal.2005). Government argued that, settled, no project before court which threatened injury fact, lacked regulations; absent particular ripe. proceeded, however, adjudicate merits Island's challenges. It invalidated five (including 215.12(f)), id., 1011, entered nationwide application, Ruthenbeck, CIV F-03-6386 JKS, 2005 WL 5280466 *2 (Sept. 20, 2005). Ninth Circuit held challenges ripe adjudication because there was "not sufficient `case controversy'" sustain facial challenge. 490 F.3d 687, 696 (2007) (amended opinion). affirmed, Court's determination 215.12(f), applicable contrary law, upheld application. sought review question could if so appropriate relief. certiorari, 552 U.S. ___, 128 1118, 169 Ed. 846 II limiting judicial power "Cases" "Controversies," Article III Constitution restricts it traditional role Anglo-American courts, redress actual imminently persons caused private official violation law. Except when necessary execution function, courts charter revise legislative executive action. See Lujan Defenders Wildlife, 504 555, 559-560, 112 2130, 119 351 (1992); Los Angeles Lyons, 461 95, 111-112, 103 1660, 75 675 (1983). limitation "is founded concern about properand properly limited democratic society." Warth Seldin, 422 490, 498, 95 2197, 45 343 (1975). Richardson, 418 166, 179, 94 2940, 41 678 (1974). *1149 doctrine one several doctrines reflect fundamental limitation. requires federal satisfy themselves plaintiff has `alleged such personal stake outcome controversy' warrant his invocation federal-court jurisdiction." U.S., 498-499, 2197. He bears burden showing he each type relief sought. supra, 105, 1660. To injunctive relief, show threat suffering "injury fact" particularized; imminent, conjectural hypothetical; fairly traceable action defendant; likely favorable injury. Friends Earth, Inc. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 167, 180-181, 120 693, 145 610 (2000). assures "there real need exercise order protect interests complaining party," Schlesinger Reservists Comm. Stop War, 208, 221, 2925, 706 Where does exist, allowing oversee "would significantly alter allocation ... away government," 188, 2940 (Powell, J., concurring). here neither require nor forbid any part standards they prescribe appeals govern only conduct officials engaged planning. "[W]hen himself object government inaction challenges, precluded, but ordinarily `substantially difficult' establish." 562, 2130. Here, can demonstrate affect manner described above. common ground respondent assert members. particularized requires, point members' recreational Forests. While generalized harm forest environment alone support standing, fact affects even mere esthetic plaintiff, suffice. Sierra Club Morton, 405 727, 734-736, 92 1361, 31 636 (1972). Affidavits submitted alleged organization member Ara Marderosian repeatedly visited site, imminent do again, viewing flora fauna harmed went forward without incorporation ideas suggested him opportunity comment. concedes respect Ridge. Brief Petitioners 28. Marderosian's regard originally bases present suit. After injunction, differences score. been remedied, is, pronounced, 2d, 999. know precedent proposition *1150 sued lawfulness suit, retains basis (here, regulation abstract), apart threatens interests. Such holding fly face III's injury-in-fact requirement. 111, identified affidavit relied Jim Bensman.[*] asserted, first, suffered past development land. That suffice reasons: tied regulations, identify relates rather future enjoined. Bensman's further asserts many Forests visit unnamed future. describe "provide name affected [Bensman's] interests," 44. much (or less) that. allege claimed unlawfully subject impede specific plan enjoy occupy 190 million larger Texas. Meet Service, http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/ meetfs.shtml (as Feb. 27, 2009, available Clerk case file). There may chance, hardly likelihood, wanderings bring parcel Indeed, specification impossible tell (in respondents' view) allegations weaker likelihood we found insufficient 675, where who injured improper police chokehold barring use hold said "no conjecture" Lyons subjected upon later encounter. Id., 108, Here asked assume Bensman stumble across tract way harms interests, commented regulation. Accepting intention adequate confer affecting portion forests tantamount eliminating concrete, fact. specifically series Allegheny assert, firm locations, saying "`want[s] to'" go there. 6. vague desire return *1151 injury: "Such `some day' intentionswithout description plans, indeed some day bedo finding `actual imminent' our cases require." 564, argue procedural injury, namely denied ability comments continue denied. But deprivation right interest deprivationa vacuois create standing. Only "person accorded meeting all normal redressability immediacy." 572, n. 7, 2130 (emphasis added). claiming allegedly unlawful abridged able oppose impinge observe nature area. now off table. makes difference Congress. loosen strictures prong inquiryso existed example, despite possibility guaranteed comment successful persuading avoid impairment Unlike redressability, hard floor jurisdiction cannot removed statute. "[I]t exceed [Article III's] limitations if, behest entertain citizen suits vindicate public's nonconcrete proper administration laws.... [T]he party bringing suit injures way." 580-581[, 2130] (KENNEDY, concurring judgment). dissent proposes hitherto unheard-of test organizational standing: whether, accepting organization's self-description members, statistical probability members Since, pleadings "`700,000 nationwide, including thousands California'" "`use Forest,'" post, 1154 (opinion BREYER, J.), probable (according dissent) (unidentified) planned parcels suffer result. novel approach law mockery cases, plaintiff-organizations establishing least harm. 563, failed "submit affidavits showing, through facts [its] `directly' affected" *1152 illegal activity. 636, involved same case, principal truly massive, involving construction motels, restaurants, swimming pools, parking lots, structures 80 Forest, plus ski lifts, trails, 20-mile access highway. engage probabilities Club's adversely affected, said: "The pastimes Disney development. Nowhere state Mineral King purpose, proposed respondents." 735, 1361. And FW/PBS, Dallas, 493 215, 235, 110 596, 107 603 (1990), noted city individuals license-revocation program. naming never dispensed light probabilities, See, e.g., NAACP Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 449, 459, 78 1163, 2 1488 (1958) (all release membership lists). A major problem dissent's accepts organizations' self-descriptions membership, simple denies" them, 1156. well established independent obligation assure exists, regardless parties. Bender Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 534, 541, 1326, 89 501 (1986). Without individual affidavits, how itself Club, "`thousands members'" Forest'"? And, plaintiffs "use activity roughly vicinity of" 566, (internal quotation marks omitted), sites take place? Or find recreation burdened procedures? certainly possible perhaps likelythat meet criteria, speculation "Standing," said, `an ingenious academic conceivable' [but] requires... factual perceptible harm." difficulty verifying probabilistic depends, requisite harmsurely difficult task here, harmed. us replace "`imminent'" harm, acknowledges establish, see 1155, "`a realistic threat' reoccurrence [the plaintiff] *1153 `in reasonably near future,'" language taken, course, seeming expansiveness made bit difference. timely usual formulation. fail affiants' ever issue. insists, should late-filed affidavits. invokes Federal Rule Civil Procedure 15(d) (West 2008 rev. ed.), says "[t]he permit supplementation though original pleading defective stating claim defense." So 21 joinder "at time." latter permits parties, former record, circumstances here: trial over, judgment entered, filed. cites instance "supplementation" permitted resurrect gone judgment, If 15(b) allows additional inserted into record filed, threshold brave new world practice 60 swallowed whole 15(b). * Since resolved reach Government's contention demonstrated Administrative Act. likewise prevailed, appropriate. disturb dismissal remaining appealed. reversed affirmed part. ordered. KENNEDY, concurring. join full As explains, "deprivation standing." Ante, 1151. "impair separate interest." (1992). different considerations "giv[ing] rise controversy none before." 580, Nothing statute indicates intended right. whom STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG join, dissenting. holds (along organizations) "`concrete injury'" sells logging "many thousands" (250-acre woodland legally proceduresprocedures which, followed, lead cancel modify sales. *1154 justifies counterintuitive conclusion. plaintiffs, organizations. Institute, California organization, 15,000 States, 3,000 recreational, educational, aesthetic, spiritual purposes." Corrected Complaint Declaratory Injunctive Relief Case CIV-F-03-630 REC DLB (ED Cal.) ¶ App. (hereinafter Complaint). ForestKeeper, "100 plus" Southern Nevada hiking, bird animal watching, aesthetic enjoyment, quiet contemplation, fishing scientific study." 9, 32. Heartwood, located Illinois Indiana, coalition "members" "continually purposes ecological health, recreation, 10, 33. Center Biological Diversity, Arizona, New Mexico, 5,000 lands," "dedicated preservation, protection, restoration biological diversity, native species ecosystems Western elsewhere." Ibid., 11. "700,000 California" Forest," "outdoor study various kinds, study, bird-watching, photography, fishing, canoeing, hunting, backpacking, camping, solitude, variety activities." 12, 34. These "shall process," along procedure filing administrative "appeals," actions... ...." add exempted "notice, appeal" processes decisions allow, among lands size. 215.4(a), (2008); 44607-44608 (describing exempted). refusal violates ¶¶ 105-106, 61. B majority lack constitutional raise claim. between groups consists simply abstract challenge; amount "Cas[e]" "Controvers[y]" grants resolve. Art. 2, cl. 1. agree so. understand decides, prove helpful imagine statutory provision expressly like just one, (1) future, (2) group's opposed *1155 (using so) cannot, not, unconstitutional. Massachusetts EPA, 549 497, 516-518, 127 1438, 167 248 (2007); 734-738, How then constitutionally unauthorized? believe answers follows: recognizes, held, demonstrates "`injury fact,'" "fairly traceable" defendant's "challenged action," (3) "favorable [judicial] decision" redress. deny two requirements. focuses presence "actual," "conjectural hypothetical," 180, 693. doing so, agrees "organizations" "assert members." 1149. points out injuries "members' recreational" "mere interests... suffice." plaintiffs' interest" thereby i.e., "a vacuo" "insufficient 1151 added); 517-518, 1438. assumes, I, substantive actions, lands, might place followed. finds sufficiently 1149-1150. put matter terms my hypothetical statute, organizations, while (i.e., law), credibly sales, similar projects, unlikely asserted groups? apparently arguing "imminent"a appropriately context ripeness necessity Ohio Forestry Assn., 523 726, 734, 118 1665, 140 921 (1998). concede sometimes word "imminent" done primarily emphasize questionthe "imminent"was merely "conjectural" "hypothetical" otherwise speculative. 560, directly focused matter, where, already wishes challenge, *1156 will, recur plaintiff. what (1983), plaintiff's attempt enjoin chokeholds. wrote past, shown threat" "in future." 107, 1660 Precedent nowhere suggests "realistic standard contains identification requirements stringent "realistic" implies. Blum Yaretsky, 457 991, 1000, 102 2777, 73 534 (1982). impose stricter criterion? Would holder property complains life tenant's waste almost inevitably hurt value interestthough years future? landowner neighbor's upstream dam constitutes nuisanceeven downstream (while bound occur) occur years? person seeking protection (but nongeographically specific) threats attacks? contrary, specify precise times, dates, GPS coordinates. Thus, recently complain failing, namely, EPA's restrict carbon dioxide emissions, failing Massachusetts-based (though decades. 522-523, admits intends Defendants' Motion Clarify Amend Judgment CIV-F-03-6386-JKS-DLB Cal.), pp. 13-14. authorize (without necessary) members? Consider: allege, conceded, took wrongful (such selling timber) "thousands" times 6; Exh. Decl. Gloria Manning, Chief System 6, p. 3 (identifying 3,377 decisions," "[a]s July 1, 2005," procedures). alleges, denies, hundreds regularly Nation scientific, purposes. 8-12, 31-34. (and members), believing actions) proceedings agency. *1157 intend express opposition Consider further: Marderosian, attached Complaint, specifies site return. therefore ha[s] Why affidavit, Bensman, Inc.? states, 70 Forests, "hundreds times," often "probably thousand" proposals, 20 Forestone past. 13, E Pet. Cert. 68a, 69a, 71a. say conceded specificity needed uses? know, virtually certain, snow fall England winter town arrive. kind specificity. it? heavily relies, (true, "massive") development, single previously determined size, "limited number visitors." 728, unwillingness infer demand sites, acreage, location yet known. ibid., unreasonable fact." given very circumstances, not. Whatever doubt remain claims remained alive). consider "[a]fter judgment." 1150, motion stay) outset settled. No longer wishing rely solely evidence project, perfectly sensible response settlement Complaint's "retroactiv[e]" "me[e]t time judgment"? until point, *1158 course (who outset) respond laterwhen challenged. characterized "resurrect outcome" case. 1153. Regardless, bar Rules contain bar. judge liberal discretion amend complainteven (of several) why affidavitsat judge's permission? Civ. Proc. ("The defense"). then-pending scheduled use. Erik Ryberg, Payette Forestan "personally familiar." 90. second Hoosier "multiple times" coming weeksand Daniel Boone Forestalso Bensmanwhich "impact [Heartwood's] members['] areas." 8-9, 85-86. describe, frequency routinely pending wished Rene Voss prescribed burn Gallatin Forest); Craig 98 Thomas' "use" "enjoy[ment]" "Sierra national professional pursuits," attesting "eighteen projects," excluded, tract). adequately brought conductconduct thinks lawful reoccur. Many ago warned "be blind necessarily known every intelligent person." re Wo Lee, 26 471, (1886). Applying standard, here. recognize raises adjudication. arguments merit. discuss shall either. With respect, dissent. NOTES [*] appeal, these. met remedy defect retroactively.

Classification Label: 8