Center for Food Safety v. Thomas Vilsack

The Center for Food Safety and other plaintiffs appeal the district court’s dismissal of their case as moot. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recount it here.

I

The district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because the case was moot. In determining whether a case is moot, the “question is whether there can be any effective relief.” Cantrell v. City of Long Beach, 241 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[Djefendants in [National Environmental Policy Act] cases face a particularly heavy burden in establishing mootness.” Id. The district court properly determined that the government had satisfied its burden. The challenged permits have expired, and there is no effective relief that the court could grant.

The Center argues that, although the permits have expired, a court can still grant effective relief by, for instance, investigating the harms from the planting, ordering the crops destroyed, taking other steps to mitigate harms such as precluding later planting, or imposing safeguards. Most of those proposed actions are beyond the power of the court to order.…