Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) filed a citizen suit in the District Court against the EPA and Inhance Technologies, LLC. The plaintiffs alleged that the EPA failed to fulfill its nondiscretionary duties under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to address risks associated with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a chemical found in plastic containers. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed the EPA violated TSCA section 4(f) by not initiating action within 180 days of receiving information about the risks, and violated section 7(a)(2) by failing to bring an enforcement action against Inhance to abate an imminent hazard. The District Court dismissed the case, ruling that the EPA had fulfilled its section 4(f) duty by publishing a request for comment and that section 7(a)(2) did not impose a nondiscretionary duty in this context. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal but on different grounds, focusing entirely on the plaintiffs' lack of standing.
The court focused on the threshold requirement of associational standing under Article III, applying the three-part test from Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission. To establish standing, an organization must show that its members would have standing in their own right, that the interests protected are germane to the organization's purpose, and that the claim does not require individual member participation. The court noted that implicit in this test is the requirement that the organization must have members or equivalent affiliates. PEER and CEH conceded they were not traditional membership organizations and instead argued they were the functional equivalent of such organizations based on their relationships with their employees, board members, and supporters. The court rejected this theory, explaining that employees act as the means by which an organization operates, not as the constituency whose interests the organization exists to represent. The court found that neither organization claimed its purpose was to advance the interests of its employees, nor that employees were the primary beneficiaries of its work. Furthermore, the court held that influence derived from an employee's role in carrying out organizational objectives does not satisfy the requirement that the organization be subject to the influence of a constituency whose interests it represents. The court emphasized that treating employees as members would collapse the distinction between the representative and the represented that the Hunt test presupposes. Consequently, the court concluded that the organizations failed to plausibly allege associational standing and dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction.
The decision dismisses the citizen suit without reaching the merits of the EPA's alleged failures under the Toxic Substances Control Act. This leaves the substantive questions regarding the EPA's duties to initiate action under section 4(f) or bring enforcement actions under section 7(a)(2) regarding PFOA unresolved by this court. The ruling reinforces the strict requirements for associational standing, clarifying that an organization cannot claim standing on behalf of its employees simply because they work for the organization. Future citizen suits by similar organizations must demonstrate a traditional membership structure or a functional equivalent where the represented constituency exercises meaningful control over the organization's direction.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download