Background
Forward, Inc. operates a landfill near Stockton, California, and has been subject to cleanup orders related to groundwater contamination. Forward alleged that neighboring state facilities were generating hazardous waste that interfered with its remediation efforts. After obtaining access to the facilities through a right-of-entry agreement with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the California Department of General Services, Forward sued the Secretary of CDCR and the Director of DGS for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that the Eleventh Amendment generally bars suits against states in federal court, and that Ex parte Young permits only suits against state officers who have some fairly direct connection to the alleged ongoing violation of federal law. The panel concluded that the complaint did not establish that connection here. It found that the Secretary of CDCR and the Director of DGS had only general supervisory or managerial roles and that the complaint did not identify direct actions by either official tied to hazardous-waste generation, disposal, or enforcement responsibilities under the federal statute. Because the officials were sued only as general representatives of the state rather than as officers with a sufficiently direct connection to the alleged violations, the suit could not proceed under Ex parte Young.
The sued state officer must have some connection with the enforcement of the act, or else it is merely making him a party as a representative of the state, and thereby attempting to make the state a party.
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 157 (1908), as quoted in the opinion
The dissent
the plaintiff adequately showed the required connection between the state defendants and the alleged RCRA violations by alleging that the defendants had control over the agencies and their operations alleged to be causing pollution
Judge Gould
What it means going forward
Plaintiffs seeking prospective relief against state officials in the Ninth Circuit must identify officials with a concrete and fairly direct connection to the alleged ongoing federal-law violation. Naming high-level agency heads based only on broad supervisory authority will not be enough to avoid sovereign immunity.