NEPA

Application to State Agencies. The District Court held that NEPA’s application is not limited to federal actions, but rather applies to state projects that receive federal funding. The court reasoned that “federal funding transforms a state project into a federal action subject to NEPA’s requirements.” Thus, the court required the Director of SCDOT to comply with the procedural requirements of NEPA. The plaintiffs did not raise this issue on appeal.

Litigation Procedure

Private Right of Action. The District Court held that although NEPA does not provide a private right of action, “a private plaintiff can use the [Administrative Procedure Act] to bring an action for judicial review of alleged NEPA violations.” Thus, the court held that the plaintiffs’ suit was appropriate. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision, holding that “NEPA does provide a cause of action for private plaintiffs challenging compliance with its provisions.”

Standing. The District Court held that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the lawsuit. The court reasoned that: (1) the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged injury in fact by stating that the project would harm the educational, scientific, recreational, and aesthetic benefits enjoyed by members of the plaintiff organizations; (2) the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the project was the cause of the injury; and (3) requiring the defendants to reevaluate the project’s environmental impacts and alternatives could redress the injury. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision, adopting District Court’s analysis and adding that the plaintiffs need not show that injunction would directly redress the injury, but must show “only that relief will preserve the federal procedural remedy.”

Ripeness. The District Court held that the plaintiffs’ claims were ripe for review because delay could limit the plaintiffs’ ability to seek a remedy for the alleged defects in the FEIS and because judicial intervention was unlikely to “inappropriately interfere” with further administrative action. The plaintiffs did not raise this issue on appeal.

Eleventh Amendment. The District Court granted defendant SCDOT’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against it, holding that the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provided SCDOT with sovereign immunity and barred the plaintiffs’ claims against SCDOT as an agency. However, the court further held that the Director of SCDOT was not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, stating that “[a]lthough the Eleventh Amendment provides sovereign immunity to a state and state agencies, a plaintiff is not prohibited from bringing suit against a state officer to enjoin violations of federal law.” The Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision, adopting District Court’s analysis and adding that if federal courts are prohibited from hearing suits for injunctive relief against state actors, “state action could render a NEPA violation a “fait accompli” and eviscerate the federal remedy.” The court further stated that “[t]he declaratory relief [sought by the plaintiffs] is simply the determination that past actions by the Defendants did not comply with NEPA,” rather than seeking additional action, and therefore “does not threaten the sovereignty of the state.” The court also noted that the Director of SCDOT had the necessary “special relation” to the alleged violation of federal law.