Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation

Supreme Court of the United States
497 U.S. 871 (1990)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To establish standing to sue under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) at the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff cannot rest on general averments of harm but must set forth specific facts in affidavits showing they have been directly and adversely affected by a particular, final agency action.

Facts:

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency within the Department of the Interior, administered what the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) termed the 'land withdrawal review program'.
This program involved reclassifying public lands and revoking prior 'withdrawals' that had protected certain lands from economic activities like mining and oil and gas leasing.
The NWF, an organization dedicated to conservation, alleged that this program illegally opened public lands to development, impairing the recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment of its members.
To demonstrate injury, NWF submitted an affidavit from a member, Peggy Kay Peterson, stating her recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment of federal lands 'in the vicinity of South Pass-Green Mountain, Wyoming' had been adversely affected.
The BLM had issued an order terminating the withdrawal classification for approximately 4,500 acres within the two-million-acre South Pass-Green Mountain area.
NWF also submitted an affidavit from another member, Richard Erman, making similar general claims about his use of land 'in the vicinity of' large tracts in Arizona affected by another BLM order.
The BLM's program consisted of approximately 1,250 individual land classification terminations and withdrawal revocations.

Procedural Posture:

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) sued the Department of the Interior in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The District Court granted NWF's motion for a preliminary injunction and denied the government's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
The government (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's orders.
On remand, the government moved for summary judgment on the grounds that NWF lacked standing.
After a hearing, the District Court rejected supplemental affidavits filed by NWF as untimely and granted the government's summary judgment motion, dismissing the case.
NWF (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, finding the original affidavits sufficient and holding that it was an abuse of discretion to reject the supplemental ones.
The government (petitioners) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

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 an organization establish standing to challenge a government agency's entire 'land withdrawal review program' by submitting member affidavits that allege recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment of unspecified lands 'in the vicinity of' particular tracts affected by discrete agency land-status decisions?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Scalia

No. To survive a summary judgment motion on standing, a plaintiff must set forth specific facts showing that they are directly aggrieved by a particular agency action, and general allegations of using land 'in the vicinity' of an affected area are insufficient. The APA provides for judicial review of discrete 'agency action,' not sweeping, multi-faceted 'programs' that are the sum of many individual actions. First, Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the non-moving party to present 'specific facts' showing a genuine issue for trial, not just conclusory allegations. The Peterson and Erman affidavits, by merely claiming use of land 'in the vicinity' of vast territories, failed to state that the members' actual recreational interests were affected by the specific agency actions opening limited parcels to potential development. Second, the 'land withdrawal review program' as a whole is not a final 'agency action' subject to judicial review under the APA. It is the name for the ongoing, day-to-day operations of the BLM in fulfilling its statutory duties, comprising thousands of individual, discrete actions. A plaintiff cannot challenge the entire program wholesale but must identify a specific, final agency action—like a particular withdrawal revocation—and demonstrate how that specific action caused them a concrete injury.

Dissenting - Justice Blackmun

Yes. The member affidavits, when viewed in the light most favorable to the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), were sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact regarding the organization's standing. The majority interprets the affidavits too narrowly. Peterson’s assertion that her use and enjoyment were adversely affected by the decision to open the South Pass-Green Mountain area to mining is meaningless or perjurious if she did not actually use the affected lands; the court should infer she did. Furthermore, the district court abused its discretion by refusing to consider supplemental, more specific affidavits filed by NWF. The organization had been led to believe by prior court rulings that its standing was secure, making its failure to submit the affidavits earlier a case of excusable neglect. This complex and important litigation should not be terminated on a technical and overly rigid application of procedural rules.

Analysis:

This decision significantly heightened the standing requirements for plaintiffs, particularly environmental organizations, at the summary judgment stage. It moved away from the more lenient pleading standard of cases like United States v. SCRAP and established that specific, concrete proof of injury is required. By holding that broad 'programs' are not reviewable 'agency actions,' the Court made it much more difficult to bring systemic challenges against government policies. This forces plaintiffs into a more resource-intensive, case-by-case litigation strategy, challenging individual agency decisions rather than an entire policy at once, thereby strengthening the hand of government agencies.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation (1990)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature