Supreme Court of the United States
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
June 14, 2004542 U.S. 55
Summary
The Supreme Court held that the APA's authorization to 'compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed,' 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), extends only to a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take. Applying that framework, it rejected all three of SUWA's claims: the 43 U.S.C. § 1782(c) wilderness nonimpairment mandate is mandatory as to its object but leaves BLM discretion as to means; land use plan statements that BLM 'will' act are statements of priorities, not binding commitments; and increased ORV use after a land use plan's approval triggers no NEPA supplementation because no 'major Federal action' remains to occur. The Court reversed the Tenth Circuit and remanded. No separate opinions were filed.
Holding
- Whether BLM's nonimpairment obligation under 43 U.S.C. § 1782(c) is a discrete agency action legally required of BLM that a court can compel under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).. No. Section 1782(c) is mandatory as to the object to be achieved — managing WSAs so as not to impair their suitability for preservation as wilderness — but leaves BLM a great deal of discretion in deciding how to achieve it; it does not, with the clarity necessary to support § 706(1) action, mandate total exclusion of ORV use, and courts may not enter general orders compelling compliance with broad statutory mandates.
- Whether statements in BLM land use plans that BLM 'will' conduct activities, such as the Henry Mountains plan's ORV use supervision and monitoring commitments, are binding commitments enforceable under § 706(1).. No. Land use plans' 'will do' projections of agency action are not legally binding commitments enforceable under § 706(1), at least absent clear indication of binding commitment in the terms of the plan; a land use plan is generally a statement of priorities that guides and constrains actions but does not prescribe them.
- Whether evidence of increased ORV use is 'significant new circumstances or information' requiring BLM to take a 'hard look' at whether to undertake supplemental environmental analyses under NEPA.. No. Supplementation is required only if 'major Federal action' remains to occur; although approval of a land use plan is a major Federal action requiring an EIS, that action is completed when the plan is approved, so there is no ongoing major Federal action that increased ORV use could require BLM to supplement (though BLM must perform additional NEPA analyses if a plan is amended or revised).
Docket 03-101
Cited authorities
- 16 U.S.C. §§ 1333
- 16 U.S.C. § 410bbb-2(a)(1)
- 16 U.S.C. § 460nnn-12(b)
- CA10
- CA10
- 43 CFR 8342
- 5 U.S.C. § 706
- 90 Stat. 2744
Cited by
- Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. United States Food and Drug Administration
- Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership v. Kempthorne
- Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center v. Stanislaus National Forest
- Alegre v. Contreras
- Al Otro Lado v. Kristi Noem
- Kennedy v. U.S. Department of State
- Ghannad-Rezaie v. Laitinen
- American Waterways Operators v. United States Coast Guard