Norton v. SUWA
Citation and Court
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004). United States Supreme Court.
Facts
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) sued the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), arguing that BLM’s failure to restrict off-road vehicle (ORV) use on certain public lands violated the agency’s resource management plans and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. SUWA sought a court order compelling BLM to take action under APA §706(1), which allows courts to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” The district court and Tenth Circuit ruled in SUWA’s favor, finding that BLM had a mandatory duty to prevent impairment of wilderness study areas.
Issue
Whether APA §706(1) authorizes a court to compel agency action where the alleged failure to act involves broad programmatic obligations set out in a land management plan rather than a specific, discrete, legally required action.
Holding
The Supreme Court reversed unanimously, holding that §706(1) only authorizes courts to compel “discrete” agency action that is legally required. A general land management plan does not create mandatory, enforceable duties to take specific protective actions.
Rule / Doctrine
APA §706(1) permits judicial review only of a “failure to take a discrete agency action that [the agency] is required to take.” Broad programmatic objectives in agency plans — as opposed to specific statutory or regulatory commands — do not create duties enforceable by mandamus. The limitation prevents courts from exercising ongoing supervisory control over agency operations.
Significance
Norton v. SUWA sharply limits suits to compel agency inaction under §706(1). It establishes that plaintiffs cannot use the APA to force agencies to take general enforcement or management actions derived from aspirational plan language. The case is a cornerstone of the law of agency inaction and unreviewable discretion under Heckler v. Chaney.