Ken,
Why is this a national decision? Aren't the rulings of the 9th Circuit generally limited to its geographic area?
In my limited understanding, I would have thought that. However I think since this involves a national rule of a federal agency, when they invalidate it, it applies everywhere. Best guess. The actual wording:
This action challenges two of the public notice, comment, and administrative appeal regulations that the defendant United States Forest Service ("Forest Service") promulgated in response to the Forest Service Decisionmaking and Appeals Reform Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-381, Title III,§ 322, 106 Stat. 1419 (16 U.S.C. §1612 note) (October 5, 1991) ("ARA"). The challenged provisions are codified at 36 C.F.R. §§215.4(a) and 215.12(f) (2003).1 This Court has previously addressed the Forest Service's jurisdictional challenges to this action. In this order, this Court shall address the merits of Plaintiffs' claims. For the following reasons, this Court finds that Sections 215.4(a) and 215.12(f) are manifestly contrary to both the plain language of the ARA and its purpose. Accordingly, this Court GRANTS judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. This Court further GRANTS Plaintiffs their requested relief of a nationwide injunction to enjoin the Forest Service from implementing the invalidated regulations.
Pursuant to this statute, this Court must hold unlawful and set aside
the regulations that were impermissible interpretations of their governing statute. A geographicallyrestricted
injunction is insufficient, as the Forest Service has no authority to continue to implement ultra
vires regulations in any district of the United States. See also, Nat. Resources Def. Council v. EPA, 966
F.2d 1292, 1304 (9th Cir. 1992); Asarco v. EPA, 616 F.3d 1153, 1162 (9th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, this
Court grants Plaintiffs' request for a nationwide injunction of Sections 215.4(a) and 215.12(f).
