UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RANCHO VISTA DEL MAR, Plaintiff, v. No. 22-cv-141 (DLF) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Rancho Vista del Mar, a corporation that owns nearly 500 acres of land adjacent to the Mexican border in San Diego County, brings this suit against the United States, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Secretary, and the Chief Patrol Agent for the San Diego Sector of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). See Compl. ¶¶ 1–5, Dkt. 1. Rancho Vista alleges that the government’s decision “to terminate the construction contracts and abandon work on the partially finished border fence” adjacent to Rancho Vista’s property violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Id. at 1; see also id. ¶¶ 16, 17, 21. Before the Court is the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 12. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion. I. BACKGROUND A. Statutory Framework The APA permits judicial review of “final agency action” unless it “is committed to agency discretion by law” or a “statute preclude[s] judicial review.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 701(a), 704. It empowers the Court to “hold unlawful and set aside” agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Id. § 706(2)(A). In an arbitrary and capricious challenge, the core question is whether the agency’s decision was “the product of reasoned decisionmaking.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 52 (1983). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) “establishes procedural requirements to ensure that the government gives ‘appropriate consideration’ to environmental impacts before undertaking major actions.” Gulf Restoration Network v. Haaland, 47 F.4th 795, 798 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(B)–(C)). Among other things, it requires the agency “to take a ‘hard look’ at the reasonably foreseeable impacts of a proposed major federal action” and to “consider alternatives to the proposed action.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). The agency must prepare and publish an environmental impact statement to that effect. See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C); Friends of Cap. Crescent Trail v. Fed. Transit Admin., 877 F.3d 1051, 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2017). The statute is a procedural one, “designed to ensure fully informed and well-considered decision[s] by federal agencies,” and it “does not mandate particular results.” Del. Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 753 F.3d 1304, 1309–10 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). The Endangered Species Act (ESA) likewise imposes requirements on federal agencies before taking certain actions. See 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. For instance, “[i]f an agency concludes that its action ‘may affect’ a listed species or critical habitat, then the agency must pursue either formal or informal consultation with the [National Marine Fisheries Service] or Fish and Wildlife [Service].” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Dep’t of Interior, 563 F.3d 466, 474–75 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.13, 402. 14). “If the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals