497 U.S. 871 (1990)
In 1985 the National Wildlife Federation filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Director of the Bureau of Land Management.1
The amended complaint alleged violations of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the Administrative Procedure Act arising from the BLM's administration of what the complaint called the land withdrawal review program.2 Appended to the complaint was a schedule identifying specific land-status determinations, each listed in the Federal Register, that had been taken since January 1, 1981.3
The land withdrawal review program encompassed review and recommendation of withdrawals in eleven Western States under FLPMA § 1714(l), revocation of withdrawals initiated by agencies, the public, or the BLM itself under § 204(a), and ongoing classification of public lands for multiple-use management, disposal, or other uses.4 These actions could open previously withdrawn lands to mining claims and mineral leasing.5 The complaint asserted that the BLM had failed to develop required land-use plans, submit recommendations to the President, consider multiple uses, provide public notice, and prepare environmental impact statements.6
In December 1985 the district court granted a preliminary injunction.7 In a subsequent order the court denied the government's motion to dismiss for lack of standing under Rule 12(b).8 The Court of Appeals affirmed both rulings in 1987.9 On summary judgment the district court held the Peterson and Erman affidavits insufficient because they referred only to lands in the vicinity of the tracts affected by two specific orders.10 The court rejected four additional member affidavits as untimely.11 The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the original affidavits were adequate, that rejection of the supplemental affidavits was an abuse of discretion, and that standing to challenge individual decisions conferred standing to challenge the entire program.12 The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1990.13
Whether the Peterson and Erman affidavits, together with the complaint's appendix of Federal Register notices, established that National Wildlife Federation members were adversely affected or aggrieved by specific BLM classification and withdrawal decisions within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 702?14
Under 5 U.S.C. § 702 a plaintiff seeking judicial review must identify some final agency action.15 The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the plaintiff has been adversely affected or aggrieved by that action within the meaning of a relevant statute.16 On summary judgment under Rule 56 the plaintiff must set forth specific facts showing injury traceable to the particular action rather than resting on general allegations.17
No. The Peterson affidavit alleged recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment of lands in the vicinity of South Pass-Green Mountain without identifying use of the precise 4,500 acres affected by termination order W-6228 listed in the complaint appendix.18 The Erman affidavit similarly failed to connect injury to the specific lands affected by Public Land Order 6156.19 The complaint's schedule of Federal Register notices supplied only general identification of actions and did not cure the absence of specific facts showing that the members' interests were actually affected by those two decisions.20
The Peterson and Erman affidavits did not establish that NWF members were adversely affected or aggrieved by the specific BLM decisions within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 702.21
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Brennan, Marshall, And Stevens
Justice Blackmun dissented on the ground that the affidavits were adequate to create a genuine issue of fact as to injury.22 He noted that the affidavits enabled BLM officials to identify the particular termination orders.23 The assertions of adverse effect on recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment should be read in the context of record evidence showing that mining would occur on the affected lands.24
Blackmun emphasized that on summary judgment all inferences must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.25 The affidavits were not merely conclusory when viewed against the whole record.26
Whether the BLM's ongoing land withdrawal review program constitutes a single final agency action subject to judicial review under the APA?27
Under 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 704 judicial review is available only for final agency action.28 A continuing series of individual classification terminations and withdrawal revocations does not constitute an identifiable final agency action even if the agency occasionally refers to the series as a program.29
No. The land withdrawal review program is simply the name given to the BLM's ongoing and constantly changing operations of reviewing withdrawal revocation applications, classifying public lands, and developing land use plans as required by the FLPMA.30 It encompasses at least 1,250 individual classification terminations and withdrawal revocations rather than any single order, regulation, or completed universe of actions that could be challenged as one final agency action.31
The BLM's ongoing land withdrawal review program does not constitute a single final agency action subject to judicial review under the APA.32
Whether the district court abused its discretion by rejecting as untimely four supplemental member affidavits submitted after the summary judgment hearing?33
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(c), 6(d), and 6(b) affidavits in opposition to summary judgment must ordinarily be served prior to the day of the hearing.34 A district court may permit late filing only upon motion made after the deadline where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect and cause is shown.35
No. Respondent submitted the four additional affidavits on August 22, 1988, after the July 22 hearing and without any formal motion or showing of excusable neglect.36 The District Court had previously indicated that standing remained at issue.37 The passage of two years since the original affidavits had been filed provided ample time for preparation.38 The court therefore acted within its discretion in rejecting the untimely submissions.39
The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting the four supplemental member affidavits as untimely.40
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Brennan, Marshall, And Stevens
Justice Blackmun dissented on this issue as well, concluding that the District Court abused its discretion.41 He observed that prior rulings on the preliminary injunction and protective order had repeatedly assured NWF that its standing showing was sufficient.42 The federal parties' summary judgment papers had not squarely attacked standing on the existing affidavits.
The supplemental affidavits were filed at a time when the government had full opportunity to respond without prejudice.43 Blackmun stressed that the Federal Rules should be construed pragmatically to secure the just and efficient resolution of disputes rather than to abort complex litigation on technical grounds.44
Whether the National Wildlife Federation established standing in its own right, rather than derivatively through its members, to challenge alleged failures to publish regulations, invite public participation, and prepare an environmental impact statement for the land withdrawal review program as a whole?45
An organization may establish standing in its own right under 5 U.S.C. § 702 only by identifying a particular final agency action that has caused concrete injury to its own interests.46 General allegations of impairment to the organization's mission from the absence of programmatic procedures do not suffice.47
No. The Greenwalt affidavit asserted only that NWF's ability to inform its members and advocate for federal lands had been impaired by the BLM's failure to provide adequate information and opportunities for public participation with respect to the land withdrawal review program as a whole.48 The affidavit failed to identify any particular agency action as the source of the asserted injuries.49
The National Wildlife Federation did not establish standing in its own right to challenge the alleged programmatic failures.50