Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Ass'n
248 F.3d 275 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Eleventh Amendment's sovereign immunity bars citizen suits against state officials in federal court when the suit seeks to compel compliance with a state law, even if that state law was enacted as part of a cooperative federalism scheme where the state has exclusive regulatory authority.
Facts:
- In the 1990s, mountaintop-removal coal mining became a widespread practice in West Virginia.
- The method involves removing rock from a mountaintop to access coal seams and depositing the excess rock, or 'overburden', into adjacent valleys, creating 'valley fills'.
- These valley fills frequently bury intermittent and perennial streams near the mining sites.
- The Director of the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection was responsible for issuing permits authorizing this mining practice.
- Patricia Bragg and other citizens alleged that the Director was routinely approving mining permits in violation of a state 'buffer zone' regulation, which prohibits land disturbance within 100 feet of streams unless specific findings are made.
- Bragg claimed the Director consistently failed to make the required findings before authorizing valley fills that buried hundreds of miles of West Virginia's streams.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Bragg and others sued the Director of the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
- The Director filed a motion to dismiss, asserting the suit was barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
- The district court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the suit could proceed under the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity.
- Most claims were settled and approved via a consent decree, but two counts proceeded to summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Bragg on the remaining counts, finding the Director had violated his nondiscretionary duties, and issued an injunction prohibiting the Director from approving certain mining permits.
- The district court stayed its injunction pending appeal.
- The State Director, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Eleventh Amendment's grant of sovereign immunity bar a citizen suit brought in federal court against a state official to compel compliance with state mining laws, where those state laws were enacted pursuant to the cooperative federalism structure of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Niemeyer, Circuit Judge
Yes. A citizen suit against a state official is barred by the Eleventh Amendment when it seeks to compel compliance with state law, and under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act's (SMCRA) cooperative federalism scheme, the operative law in a 'primacy state' is state law, not federal law. The Ex parte Young exception, which permits suits against state officials for ongoing violations of federal law, does not apply in this context because the suit alleges violations of state law. SMCRA's structure provides for either state or federal regulation, but not both simultaneously. Once the Secretary of the Interior approves a state's program, as was done for West Virginia, the state gains 'exclusive jurisdiction,' and its own laws and regulations become the sole operative provisions. The underlying federal standards 'drop out' as directly enforceable law. Therefore, Bragg's suit to compel the Director to comply with West Virginia's buffer zone rule is a suit to enforce state law. Citing Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, the court held that ordering a state official in federal court to conform to state law is a profound intrusion on state sovereignty prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment. Finally, the court concluded that West Virginia did not waive its immunity by participating in the SMCRA program, as the statute's citizen-suit provision expressly limits actions 'to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment,' thereby preserving state immunity.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the ability of citizens to use federal courts to enforce environmental laws in states operating under 'cooperative federalism' statutes like SMCRA. It clarifies that when a state achieves 'primacy' status and gains exclusive regulatory control, legal challenges to the state's enforcement of its own program must be brought in state, not federal, court. The ruling strongly reinforces the principles of federalism and state sovereign dignity established in Pennhurst, drawing a firm line that limits the Ex parte Young exception strictly to the enforcement of federal law. This precedent forces environmental litigants to navigate state court systems for these claims, potentially facing different procedural rules and judicial interpretations than in federal court.
