{ Banner Image }
搜索此博客

订阅更新

最近的帖子

博客编辑器

博客贡献者

Your Money Is No Good Here — Prudential 常设 Under 国家环保局

Last week, 的United States District Court for 的Western District of Washington, in 三叉戟 Seafoods Corp.诉Bryson, No. C12-134 MJP (Nov. 30, 2012), sent litigants a reminder about 的necessity of proper standing in rulemaking challenges.  Indeed, standing is often one of 的most difficult aspects of these cases, and often result in early case dismissal, as it did in 三叉戟.

地位查询是一个分为两个步骤的过程。 首先,当事方必须符合美国宪法第三条的要求,这意味着它已经“case or controversy” before 的Court. 第二,一个聚会必须有“prudential standing”除其他事项外,这要求提起诉讼的一方在“zone of interest”所主张的法规或法律主张。 虽然美国最高法院说“the ‘zone of interest’ test “这不是一个特别苛刻的要求,” 克拉克诉证券业协会, 479美国388,399,107 S.Ct. 750,757,93 L.Ed. 2d 757(1987),仍然必须满足。 

原告 三叉戟 拥有并经营阿拉斯加的鱼类加工厂,并对通过修正案提出异议(“Amendment 88”)加入底栖鱼类的渔业管理计划。  A pilot program had required fish catching vessels to deliver their catches to specific processors through a cooperative arrangement, while 修订88 only required that vessels operating in 的Gulf of 阿拉斯加州 deliver fish to any processors in Kodiak. 由于此更改不会影响捕捞活动的分配并限制捕捞活动本身,因此未根据《国家环境政策法》(“NEPA”).  The Plaintiffs, who were no longer guaranteed to receive fish harvests, brought suit under 国家环保局 and 的Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (“MSA”)挑战这一失败,并断言该试点计划应成为永久性计划。  

法院认为,原告享有第三条的原告资格– that is, they were damaged by 的adoption of 修订88 and a favorable decision, such as 的re-adoption of 的pilot program, would redress their injury. 但是,法院认为缺乏审慎的立场,因为原告’ interests were purely economic, while 的purpose of 国家环保局 is environmental protection.  “甚至采用审慎的排名’ low bar, Plaintiffs’ wholly economic interests fall outside of 国家环保局’的环境关注区,” 的Court stated.  Further, as their  MSA claims were entirely derivative of 的国家环保局 claims, 的Court would not permit 的Plaintiffs to make an end-run around 的standing issue.