Summary
The Eighth Circuit held that NEPA does not create a private right of action against a state agency; judicial review of NEPA compliance is available only under the APA against final federal agency action. The court rejected the district court's reliance on *Limehouse* to imply a cause of action to preserve a future federal remedy, finding such an action moot once the FTA issued a record of decision. Because the plaintiff had no viable cause of action and no live controversy, the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in implying a private right of action under NEPA and 40 C.F.R. § 1506.1(a) against a state agency without a federal defendant.
- Whether the LPA's claim was moot after the issuance of the ROD.
Holdings
- NEPA does not provide a private right of action; the only avenue for judicial review is under the APA, which requires final agency action. The regulation cannot create a right that Congress has not. Therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the LPA's claim.
- Even if a Limehouse-like action were appropriate, any such action is now moot because the federal remedy (an APA challenge to the ROD) that the district court sought to preserve is no longer available, and the LPA declined to seek it.
Key quotations
“NEPA does not provide a private right of action.” (at 4)
“private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress” (at 4)
“NEPA provides procedural rather than substantive protection” (at 4-5)
“we are without power to decide cases in which the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome” (at 5)
Factual background
The Metropolitan Council (Council) is a regional transportation agency tasked with planning and constructing the Southwestern Light Rail Transit Project (SWLRT), a proposed transit line in Minnesota. The project required municipal consent under Minnesota law and environmental review under NEPA because it was partially funded by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The Lakes and Parks Alliance of Minneapolis (LPA), a nonprofit group of residents near the proposed route, sued the Council and the FTA in 2014, alleging that the Council's environmental review process was noncompliant with NEPA and other laws. The LPA sought to prevent the Council from taking actions that would eviscerate any future federal remedy.
Procedural history
The LPA sued the Council and the FTA in 2014, alleging violations of NEPA and other laws. The district court dismissed the FTA on sovereign immunity grounds and dismissed most claims against the Council, but preserved a narrow NEPA claim under 40 C.F.R. § 1506.1(a) to prevent evisceration of any future federal remedy. After the ROD was issued, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted the Council's motion on the merits. The LPA appealed, and the Council cross-appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss.
Remand instructions
Remand with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.