Lexplug logoLexplug

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

Supreme Court of United States
542 U.S. 55 (2004)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to compel agency action unlawfully withheld under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) is limited to discrete, legally required agency actions and cannot be used to enforce broad statutory mandates or general statements of policy in an agency's land use plans.


Facts:

  • The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages millions of acres of federal land in Utah under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).
  • FLPMA requires BLM to manage lands for 'multiple use' and to identify 'wilderness study areas' (WSAs).
  • Until Congress acts to designate WSAs as permanent wilderness, FLPMA mandates that BLM manage them 'in a manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness.'
  • BLM also develops land use plans, called resource management plans, which are intended to guide future management actions.
  • The use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) on BLM-managed lands in Utah increased significantly, leading to environmental damage and conflict with wilderness preservation goals.
  • The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) and other environmental groups asserted that BLM was failing to prevent ORV use from degrading WSAs and was not complying with its own land use plans, which included provisions for monitoring ORV use.

Procedural Posture:

  • Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) filed an action against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the United States District Court for Utah.
  • SUWA sought declaratory and injunctive relief to compel BLM to act to protect public lands from damage caused by off-road vehicle (ORV) use.
  • The District Court dismissed SUWA's claims.
  • SUWA, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
  • A divided panel of the Tenth Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal, finding that BLM had failed to carry out mandatory duties.
  • BLM, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Locked

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 Administrative Procedure Act's provision authorizing a court to 'compel agency action unlawfully withheld' permit judicial review of an agency's broad failure to manage public lands under its general statutory obligations or to adhere to its own land use plans?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Scalia

No, the APA does not permit such broad judicial review. A claim under § 706(1) to compel agency action can proceed only when a plaintiff asserts that an agency failed to take a discrete agency action that it is legally required to take. First, FLPMA’s general mandate to prevent impairment of wilderness study areas does not command any specific, discrete action but is a broad programmatic goal. Granting a court order to compel compliance would improperly entangle the judiciary in day-to-day agency management and policy decisions, which the APA is designed to prevent. Second, statements within BLM's land use plans, such as a promise that an area 'will be monitored,' are generally statements of priorities and projections, not legally binding commitments enforceable under § 706(1). These plans guide and constrain future actions but do not, in themselves, constitute discrete, legally required duties. Finally, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not require BLM to supplement its environmental analysis due to increased ORV use, because the approval of the land use plan was the final 'major Federal action,' and there is no ongoing action to supplement.



Analysis:

This decision significantly narrows the scope of judicial review for agency inaction under the APA, reinforcing a high barrier for plaintiffs seeking to compel agency enforcement or management. By establishing that § 706(1) claims must target a 'discrete' and 'legally required' action, the Court effectively foreclosed broad programmatic challenges to an agency's overall performance or failure to achieve a statutory mission. This ruling protects agency discretion in setting priorities and allocating resources, making it more difficult for public interest groups to use litigation to force agencies to address systemic problems or adhere to their own policy documents.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (2004)

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