Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Five advocacy organizations—the Center for Biological Diversity, the Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, and the Central California Asthma Collaborative—sued the Bureau of Land Management, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., and Holmes Western Oil Corporation. They challenge twenty-five BLM permits for new oil and gas wells on public land in California's Central Valley, four issued to Chevron and twenty-one to Holmes Western. The complaint invokes the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The plaintiffs allege that BLM reviewed the applications piecemeal instead of weighing cumulative effects, failed to give notice or seek public comment, and skipped required environmental assessments, and that the drilling will worsen air and water pollution. Defendants dispute that account, contending the permits cover long-established oil fields and that other sources dominate local emissions. But their motions raised only jurisdiction: they argued the complaint does not show Article III standing. The court decided the motions without oral argument; a summary judgment motion and a motion for reconsideration of a magistrate judge's order were also pending.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted both motions to dismiss with leave to amend, accepting the complaint's allegations as true and deciding nothing about the merits. On the organizations' own standing, it found their allegations insufficient. Each group described its core activities as participating in BLM planning and permitting through comments, protests, lobbying, public education, and litigation, and each said a victory would let it better participate in BLM decision-making. The court likened that theory to the one rejected in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and in the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans v. Mayes: an organization cannot spend its way to standing, or rely on strong opposition to government conduct, and the Supreme Court's holding was "decisive here."
The court acknowledged that the complaint could be read to allege an informational injury, because it says BLM provided almost no information, no draft environmental assessments, and no notice or opportunity to comment. Plaintiffs, however, did not argue that theory in opposing dismissal, so the court declined to decide it, noting their burden and a split among courts in NEPA informational-standing cases. It added that the organizations might yet show standing in their own right.
On associational standing, the complaint failed the first requirement because it identifies no member who would have standing individually. Organizations need not always name injured members, but only where it is relatively clear that members are or will be harmed. Here, no member was alleged to visit or plan to visit the well sites, to have asthma or a similar condition likely to worsen, or to live or work where pollutants would travel. The court said the groups may well have such members, but saying so would require speculation. The summary judgment motion was therefore denied for lack of jurisdiction, and the reconsideration motion was denied as moot. Any amended complaint is due within thirty days.
Key Takeaways
- Advocacy groups cannot establish their own standing through strong opposition to agency action, mission frustration, or resources spent commenting, lobbying, or litigating against it.
- A court may note a possible informational-injury theory but will not adopt it for plaintiffs who do not argue it in opposing dismissal.
- Associational standing requires allegations making it relatively clear that identifiable members are or will be harmed; generic claims about pollution and health risks do not suffice.
- The dismissal is with leave to amend, not a final judgment, and the court decided nothing about whether BLM violated any statute.
- Because jurisdiction was lacking, the pending summary judgment motion was denied for lack of jurisdiction and the reconsideration motion was denied as moot.
Why It Matters
The order applies Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and the Ninth Circuit's en banc Arizona Alliance decision to a common environmental-litigation setting: national groups challenging federal oil and gas permitting. It signals that pleadings centered on an organization's role in BLM processes will not carry standing alone, and that member-based standing needs member-specific facts. It is a single district court order, so it is persuasive but does not bind other courts.
Much remains open. Plaintiffs may, within thirty days, plead informational injury, identify affected members, or add other facts. The court decided nothing about whether BLM violated any statute, and the defendants' merits positions are untouched. The court also noted that a magistrate judge permitted amendment in a related action.