Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. de la Vega

Background

The Center for Biological Diversity and Turtles Island Restoration Network sued the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Debra Haaland, in her official capacity, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They alleged that the defendants failed to perform duties under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Administrative Procedure Act concerning stock assessment reports for nine protected mammal populations: certain sea otters, polar bears, walruses, and manatees.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act requires the Service to review reports for strategic stocks annually and for non-strategic stocks every three years. If a review shows that a stock’s status has changed or can be determined more accurately, the Service must revise the report. Draft revised reports must be made available for public review and comment.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Service had not timely reviewed six stocks or produced revised reports for them. The six remaining stocks were northern sea otters in southwest, southcentral, and southeast Alaska; the Florida manatee; the Antillean manatee of Puerto Rico; and the Pacific walrus. The plaintiffs cited changed population conditions, habitat threats, climate-related effects, fishing impacts, and watercraft deaths.

Motion and standing

The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and failure to state a claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, a connection between that injury and the challenged conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision will address the injury.

The court held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged standing for the six stocks still at issue. They alleged that their members and staff observe, study, photograph, visit, and otherwise enjoy the affected marine mammals and habitats; that the lack of updated reports deprived them of information and opportunities to comment; and that outdated information could contribute to less protective management decisions. The court found those allegations sufficient at the pleading stage to establish injury, causation, and redressability. Whether the defendants actually violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act was a separate merits question.

Failure to state a claim

The court nevertheless concluded that the complaint did not adequately allege a violation of the defendants’ statutory duties. The allegation that the Service failed to conduct the required annual or triennial reviews was largely conclusory. The complaint did not identify which particular reviews were not completed, and the court noted that the reviews were conducted internally.

The plaintiffs more clearly alleged that the Service had not recently revised reports for the six remaining stocks, a point the defendants did not dispute. But the statute required revision only if the Service’s review indicated that a stock’s status had changed or could be determined more accurately. Alleging that the stocks had changed in fact did not establish that the Service had reached either of those conclusions through its reviews, or that the Service failed to perform the reviews as required.

Disposition

The court held that the claims concerning the southern sea otter, the Chukchi/Bering Seas polar bear, and the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear were moot because the defendants had published revised reports for those stocks, and it granted the motion to dismiss to that extent.

For the six remaining stocks, the court granted the defendants’ motion under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legally valid claim. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. The court stated that the plaintiffs could try to allege facts showing that the Service had concluded that revisions were required or had failed to conduct the periodic reviews properly, including by failing to consider the best available science. The plaintiffs were permitted to file an amended complaint by November 5, 2021.

Judge Joseph C. Spero did not decide whether the Service ultimately violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The ruling disposed of the pending motion to dismiss while allowing amendment.