Pruitt v. Biden ( 2023 )

Case: 22-40625 Document: 00516629961 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-40625 January 31, 2023
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Kenneth Allen Pruitt,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., acting alone, or in
concert, in a purported official capacity; John Forbes
Kerry, acting alone, or in concert, in a purported
official capacity; United States Department of
Treasury, acting alone, or in concert; United States
Environmental Protection Agency, acting alone, or in
concert; United States National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, acting alone, or in
concert; Janet Yellen, head of USDT; Michael S.
Regan, head of EPA; Rickard Woychik, head of NEIHS,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:21-CV-13
Case: 22-40625 Document: 00516629961 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2023
No. 22-40625
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
This appeal arises from Kenneth Pruitt’s suit against numerous
Government entities for allegedly exceeding their constitutional authority.
Because Pruitt has failed to establish standing, we AFFIRM.
I. Background
Pruitt filed a complaint followed by three motions in federal district
court in early 2021. Each of the motions sought the same relief: the district
court’s enjoinment of the Government’s reentry into the Paris Agreement1
because it is a “treaty” that requires the Senate’s “advice and consent.”
U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2. The district court denied all three motions.
To temporarily evade review of his underlying complaint, he filed an
interlocutory appeal in this court. We ultimately dismissed that appeal on
jurisdictional grounds. The Supreme Court subsequently denied his petition
for a writ of certiorari.
After Pruitt’s failed appeals, the Government filed a motion to dismiss
his complaint because he failed to establish standing. The district court
granted the Government’s motion, reasoning that Pruitt’s status as a
landowner and taxpayer did not establish standing. Pruitt timely appealed.
He asks that we reconsider standing and reach his arguments on the merits.
II. Standard of Review
We review a district court’s dismissal for lack of standing de novo. See
Cornerstone Christian Schs. v. Univ. Interscholastic League, 563 F.3d 127, 133
(5th Cir. 2009).
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
1
The Paris Agreement is an international compact by which participating countries
have agreed to combat climate change.
2
Case: 22-40625 Document: 00516629961 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/31/2023
No. 22-40625
III. Discussion
Pruitt argues that the district court erred when it dismissed his appeal
for lack of standing because the Government’s reentry into the Paris
Agreement: (1) jeopardized his mineral interests in property he owns in
Nacogdoches County, Texas; and (2) increased the taxes he owes to the
federal government, causing him great financial hardship. We disagree.
“To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) an injury in
fact that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent; (2) is fairly
traceable to the defendants’ actions; and (3) is likely to be redressed by a
favorable decision.” Barilla v. City of Houston, 13 F.4th 427, 430 (5th Cir.
2021) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Regarding the
particularized requirement, the Supreme Court has explained “that the
injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Ariz.
Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 134 (2011). Accordingly,
the Supreme Court has recognized that “a plaintiff claiming only a generally
available grievance about government . . . does not state an Article III case or
controversy.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 556 (1992).
Here, Pruitt’s argument that he is a taxpayer and landowner fail to
establish standing. First, his taxpayer argument is unsustainable because it
conflicts with Supreme Court precedent. As the Winn court explained,
“[a]bsent special circumstances . . . standing cannot be based on a plaintiff’s
mere status as a taxpayer.” 563 U.S. at 134. That leaves his contention that
his status as a landowner establishes standing. But the injury he purports to
have—damage to his mineral interests—is neither concrete nor
particularized. At best, his alleged injury is a “generally available grievance”
about the impact of the President’s decision to reenter the Paris Agreement.
See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 556 (denying standing based on “nonconcrete
injuries” that “can be brought by anyone”). Put differently, any landowner
3
Case: 22-40625 Document: 00516629961 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/31/2023
No. 22-40625
in the country could claim the same injury that Pruitt does here. See id.Because he has not demonstrated that the Government’s reentry into the
Paris Agreement has caused a concrete and particularized injury as to him,
he has failed to establish standing.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal
of Pruitt’s claim for lack of standing.
4