Center for Biological Diversity v. Mattis, No. 15-15695 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs challenged the Government's approval of the location, construction, and specifications for a military base in Okinawa, Japan. Plaintiffs sought claims for declaratory and injunctive relief based on the Government's alleged violations of Section 402 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. 307101(e), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq. The Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs have standing to bring declaratory relief claims limited to whether the Government's evaluation, information gathering, and consultation process discharged the Government's obligations under the NHPA and otherwise satisfied the requirements of the APA. The panel also held that plaintiffs' injunctive relief claim did not present a political question. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court's conclusion that plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief did not present a political question; reversed the district court's conclusion that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek declaratory relief; and reversed the district court's conclusion that plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief presented a political question. The panel remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: National Historic Preservation Act / Administrative. Procedure Act The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings in an action brought by environmental groups and individuals who challenged a decision by the U.S. Department of Defense to construct a new military base on Okinawa, Japan. Plaintiffs, seeking to protect a local animal population and cultural property from the base’s alleged adverse effects, brought claims for declaratory and injunctive relief based on the Government’s alleged violations of Section 402 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. § 307101(e), and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. Reversing the district court, the panel held that plaintiffs had standing to pursue declaratory relief, limited to whether the Government’s evaluation, information gathering, and consultation process pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act Section 402 discharged the Government’s obligations under the Act and otherwise satisfied the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Applying Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), the panel agreed with the district court that plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory relief did not present a political question that would prevent judicial review.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.