Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

Supreme Court of the United States · 2004 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawAPA§ 706(1)agency inactiondiscrete agency actionlegally required actionprogrammatic challengesFLPMA

Facts

BLM manages extensive federal lands in Utah under FLPMA, including wilderness study areas that must be managed so as not to impair their suitability for wilderness preservation until Congress acts. SUWA alleged that BLM unlawfully failed to protect certain lands from damage caused by off-road vehicle use by violating FLPMA's nonimpairment mandate, failing to carry out provisions in land use plans, and failing under NEPA to take a hard look at whether supplemental environmental analysis was needed. The challenged land use plan statements included projections that BLM would monitor ORV use and close areas if warranted. Some specific plan-related actions had already been completed, but SUWA continued to press a claim seeking enforcement of an ongoing monitoring program.

Issue

Under APA § 706(1), may a court compel BLM to comply with FLPMA's general nonimpairment mandate, enforce projected actions stated in BLM land use plans, or require NEPA supplementation review based on increased ORV use after land use plans have already been approved? More generally, what kinds of agency inaction are reviewable and compellable under § 706(1)?

Rule

A claim under APA § 706(1) can proceed only when the plaintiff identifies a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take. Section 706(1) does not authorize broad programmatic oversight or general orders compelling compliance with abstract statutory mandates, and land use plan projections are not ordinarily binding commitments enforceable under § 706(1) absent a clear indication of such commitment. NEPA supplementation duties arise only when there remains major federal action to occur.

🔒

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.

Congress directs the Coastal Habitat Service to issue regulations implementing a new wetland-permit program within 120 days. Eleven months later, the agency has issued nothing. A nonprofit in Savannah, Georgia sues under APA § 706(1), asking the court to order the agency to promulgate the regulations immediately and to require that the rules ban all dredging in estuarial marshes.

What is the best disposition of the § 706(1) claim?

Explanation. A § 706(1) claim may proceed only when the plaintiff identifies a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take. Missing a statutory deadline to issue regulations is a classic failure to take a discrete required action. But the court may compel action only upon the matter, not direct how the agency shall act where substance is left to agency discretion. Thus the court can order issuance of regulations, but not prescribe their content.