Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

National Association of Home Builders?

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2015 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional Lawstandinginjury in factactual or imminent injuryissue preclusioncollateral estoppelcurable defectrepresentational standing

Facts

Home Builders challenged a 2008 internal determination by EPA and the Army Corps that two reaches of the Santa Cruz River are traditional navigable waters. Some members own property in the watershed and want to develop it, but none was alleged to own property on the river itself. In an earlier suit between the same parties, the D.C. Circuit held that Home Builders lacked constitutional standing to challenge the same determination. In this second suit, Home Builders submitted additional member declarations describing preliminary jurisdictional determinations, permit activity, development plans, and an asserted increased risk of regulation.

Issue

Whether Home Builders could relitigate Article III standing to challenge the agencies' 2008 traditional navigable waters determination despite the prior decision in Home Builders I. More specifically, the question was whether the new allegations fit the curable defect exception by showing post-dismissal events that cured the original jurisdictional deficiency.

Rule

Issue preclusion applies to jurisdictional determinations, including standing. Although a prior dismissal for lack of jurisdiction does not bar the claim on the merits, it precludes relitigation of the precise jurisdictional issue already decided unless a later suit alleges post-dismissal occurrences that materially cure the original jurisdictional defect. For standing to seek declaratory relief here, a plaintiff had to show ongoing or imminent injury that is concrete and particularized and fairly traceable to the challenged traditional navigable waters determination, such as application of that determination in an approved jurisdictional determination or enforcement action, imminent plans to discharge into a likely jurisdictional watercourse, or a substantially increased risk of regulation or enforcement at a specific site caused by the determination.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A builders' association in New Mexico previously sued federal environmental officials in Washington, D.C., challenging a watershed classification and lost because the court held it lacked Article III standing. Two years later, the association files a new suit seeking declaratory relief against the same classification, relying on the same member properties but adding fuller affidavits describing the members' business plans in more detail.

What is the strongest argument that the second suit should be dismissed?

Explanation. The majority held that issue preclusion applies to threshold jurisdictional issues such as standing. Although a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction does not bar the claim on the merits, it does preclude relitigation of the precise jurisdictional issue already adjudicated unless a later suit fits the narrow curable-defect exception. Merely adding more detail about the same properties and same theory does not avoid preclusion.