La. Sportsmen Alliance, L.L.C. v. Vilsack, 13-31260

LOUISIANA SPORTSMEN ALLIANCE, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant v. TOM VILSACK; ELIZABETH AGPAOA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTOF AGRICULTURE, Defendants-Appellees

No. 13-31260

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

October 28, 2014

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

U.S.D.C. No. 1:12-CV-2929

Before PRADO, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:^*

This is an administrative-law case in which Plaintiff-Appellant Louisiana Sportsmen Alliance, L.L.C. (the Alliance)—an organization purporting to represent the interests of hunters who prefer to use dogs when hunting deer—challenges the U.S. Forest Service's decision to ban the use of dogs to hunt deer in the Kisatchie National Forest. The Alliance sued Defendants-Appellees Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and RegionalForester Elizabeth Agpaoa, in their official capacities, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (collectively the Forest Service) in federal court. The Alliance asserts that the Forest Service's decision to ban the use of dogs to hunt deer in the Kisatchie National Forest was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706. In a carefully reasoned decision, the district court granted the Forest Service's motion for summary judgment. La. Sportsmen Alliance, LLC v. Vilsack, 984 F. Supp. 2d 600, 615-16 (W.D. La. 2013). The Alliance appeals this decision. The Forest Service defends its decision and also argues—for the first time on appeal—that this Court lacks jurisdiction because the Alliance has not established organizational standing. We agree with the Forest Service's jurisdictional argument, and we vacate the district court's opinion and remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

The background of this appeal is thoroughly discussed in the district court's opinion. La. Sportsmen Alliance, 984 F. Supp. 2d at 603-04. Because this Court need not reach any issues beyond standing, we have set forth only the general contours of the dispute and the facts pertinent to the standing question. See N.A.A.C.P. v. City of Kyle, Tex., 626 F.3d 233, 236 (5th Cir. 2010).

The Kisatchie National Forest is Louisiana's only National Forest, and it is managed by the Forest Service under the Kisatchie National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Historically, the Forest Service has allowed the hunting of deer using dogs (dog-deer hunting) on 369,000 acres of the Kisatchie National Forest during the dog-deer hunting season.

In recent years, dog-deer hunting has become controversial. Those who prefer to hunt deer without the use of dogs (still-deer hunters) complain that dog-deer hunting is disruptive and unsportsmanlike. Adjacent landownerscomplain that dog-deer hunting leads to shooting near houses and from roads, fights between dog-deer hunters and landowners, roads being blocked by dog-deer hunters, dogs running across private property, and trespass. Dog-deer hunters defend the practice based on its history as a traditional method of hunting in Louisiana dating back to the colonial period.

As the manager of the Kisatchie National Forest, the Forest Service is tasked with mediating this conflict between dog-deer hunters, still-deer hunters, and landowners. Over the past several years, the Forest Service has reduced the number of days in the dog-deer hunting season from fifteen to seven days.

In 2009, the Forest Service proposed a complete ban on dog-deer hunting in the Kisatchie National Forest. After several years of consideration and thousands of comments and letters, the Forest Service adopted the proposed ban in 2012 and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

The Alliance challenged this decision in federal court, and the district court granted the Forest Service's motion for summary judgment on the merits and entered a judgment of dismissal. The Alliance timely appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

The Forest Service raises a threshold issue whether this Court has jurisdiction to consider the Alliance's appeal. The district court was ill-served by the Forest Service in this regard, because the Forest Service never argued that the Alliance lacked organizational standing until this appeal. Article III standing is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived. City of Kyle, 626 F.3d at 237. "Federal courts, both trial and appellate, have a continuing obligation to examine the basis for their jurisdiction," and the issue of ArticleIII standing "may be raised by the parties, or by the court sua sponte, at any time." MCG, Inc. v. Great W. Energy Corp., 896 F.2d 170, 173 (5th Cir. 1990).¹

To establish organizational standing, the Alliance must show (1) the plaintiff organization's asserted legally protected interest is germane to the purposes of the plaintiff organizati...