Chevron Energy Solutions Lucerne Solar Project

9th Cir. Cites Standing in Dismissal for La Cuna De Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle Advisory Committee v. DOI

March 9, 2016Sarah M Donnelly

Excerpt:

Plaintiffs have failed to establish standing to pursue a claim under Sections 1702 and 1705 of the EPAct, 42 U.S.C. §§ 16512, 16516. To demonstrate individual standing, a plaintiff must “have suffered or be imminently threatened with a concrete and particularized ‘injury in fact’ that is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1386 (2014) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). Even if we assume Plaintiffs adequately pled injury-in-fact and redressability, they have not sufficiently alleged causation. Plaintiffs make a conclusory allegation that the Genesis Solar Energy Project (“Project”) would not have gone forward without the federal loan guarantee, but they allege no supporting facts. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that their alleged injury—suffering harm to environmental and cultural resources at the Project site—is “fairly traceable” to the Federal Defendants’ approval of the loan guarantee for the Project.

Ninth Circuit Rejects RFRA Challenge to Solar Project Near Indian Sacred Sites

May 22, 2015May 21, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the unpublished opinion in La Cuna De Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle Advisory Committee v. Dept. of Interior.

An excerpt:

We conclude that the record, which includes declarations submitted by the Plaintiffs that provide little more than conclusory statements and which have not shown where the alleged sacred sites are located at the Ivanpah Project site, is insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ claim that the loss of access to the limited area taken by the Ivanpah Project imposes a substantial burden. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs have not shown that they are either “forced to choose between following the tenets of their religion and receiving a governmental benefit,” or “coerced to act contrary to their religious beliefs by the threat of civil or criminal sanctions” as this court requires to establish a substantial burden under RFRA.

Briefs and lower court materials are here.