The Fund for Animals v. Norton
2003 WL 22963926, 294 F. Supp. 2d 92, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22992 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, when an agency reverses a prior policy, it must provide a reasoned analysis for the change that goes beyond what is required for an initial rulemaking. Failure to adequately justify a policy reversal, particularly when it contradicts the agency's statutory mandate and prior findings, renders the new policy arbitrary and capricious.
Facts:
- In 1963, the National Park Service (NPS) first permitted snowmobile use in Yellowstone and other national parks.
- By 1971, the NPS began grooming snow-covered roads to facilitate easier travel for oversnow vehicles.
- During the winter of 1996-1997, large numbers of bison migrated out of the parks along these groomed trails, resulting in over 1,000 bison being killed to prevent the spread of disease to nearby livestock.
- In January 1999, the organization Bluewater Network submitted a rulemaking petition to the Department of the Interior seeking a ban on snowmobiling and trail grooming throughout the National Park System.
- Following years of study, the NPS under the Clinton administration issued a Final Rule in January 2001 (the '2001 Rule') which determined that snowmobiling impaired park resources and mandated a complete phase-out by the 2003-2004 winter season.
- After a change in presidential administrations, the new leadership at the NPS stayed the 2001 Rule and initiated a new rulemaking process.
- In March 2003, the NPS issued a new Record of Decision (the '2003 ROD') and subsequent Final Rule that reversed the 2001 Rule, allowing up to 950 snowmobiles to enter the parks daily, citing advances in snowmobile technology and new mitigation measures.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1997, The Fund for Animals sued the National Park Service (NPS), leading to a settlement agreement that required the NPS to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on winter use.
- The NPS completed the EIS and issued a Final Rule in 2001 to phase out snowmobiling.
- The International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association (ISMA) then sued the NPS to block the 2001 Rule.
- The NPS settled the ISMA lawsuit, agreeing to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS).
- After the SEIS process, the NPS issued a new Final Rule in 2003 that reversed the phase-out and allowed continued snowmobiling.
- The Fund for Animals and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition filed the present lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the 2003 Rule as violating the Administrative Procedure Act and other statutes.
- ISMA and the State of Wyoming intervened in the case as defendants to support the 2003 Rule.
- All parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, bringing the case before the court for a final decision.
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 National Park Service’s 2003 rule, which reversed its 2001 decision to phase out snowmobiling in national parks, violate the Administrative Procedure Act as an arbitrary and capricious decision?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, District Judge.
Yes. The National Park Service's 2003 rule allowing continued snowmobiling is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. When an agency makes a 180-degree reversal of a prior policy, as the NPS did here, it is obligated under the standard set in Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm to supply a reasoned explanation for the change. The NPS failed to meet this heightened standard. Its justifications for the reversal—the availability of cleaner, quieter snowmobiles and certain mitigation measures—were insufficient and unpersuasive. The agency's 2001 rule had already considered and explicitly rejected improved technology as a solution, concluding that it would 'do little, if anything, to reduce the most serious impacts on wildlife.' The NPS never adequately explained why that conclusion was now wrong. Furthermore, the proposed mitigation measures, such as daily limits and guided tours, were found to be illusory and flawed. By failing to provide a cogent explanation for its policy reversal in the face of its conservation mandate, the NPS acted arbitrarily and capriciously.
Analysis:
This decision is a significant application of the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard of review to an agency's reversal of its own recent policy. It reinforces the principle from State Farm that while agencies can change their minds, they cannot do so without a thorough, well-supported justification that confronts the facts and analysis underlying the original rule. The ruling signals that courts will apply heightened scrutiny to policy reversals that appear to be driven by political changes rather than new evidence or a reasoned reevaluation. This precedent makes it more difficult for a new administration to quickly undo the regulations of a prior one without undertaking a rigorous and defensible rulemaking process.
