Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 542 U.S. 55 (2004) Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Secretary of the Interior (Norton) must designate appropriate Federal lands under the management of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as "Wilderness Study Areas" (WSAs). The President then recommends how each WSA should be permanently classified, and Congress uses those recommendations to determine if land should be designated to be a 'wilderness'. Pending final Congressional action, WSAs must "continue to be managed in a manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness." The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) and other organizations looked at nine specific WSAs, and felt that the BLM was allowing too much of off-road vehicle (ORV) traffic. SUWA argued that the amount of ORV allowed impaired the suitability of the WSAs so that they would no longer be appropriate to be designated a 'wilderness'. That means that BLM's failure to ensure non-impairment violated the mandatory, non-discretionary duty required by Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. §706(1)), and that gives courts the authority to compel "agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed." BLM argued that under APA judicial review is limited to final agency action, or to compel final agency action that has been withheld, and that the day-to-day operations of BLM land management that SUWA challenged are outside the concept of final agency action. BLM claimed that suits under §706(1) are reserved for actions to compel a discrete final action, like issuing a regulation. To permit a §706(1) challenge to day-to-day management would inevitably require the courts to judge the sufficiency of discretionary agency action to comply with general statutory standards. The Trial Court dismissed the case.  SUWA appealed. The Trial Court found that the claims were not reviewable under §706(1). The Appellate Court reversed.  BLM appealed. The Appellate Court found that the FLPMA imposed a mandatory, non-discretionary duty upon BLM and that a breach of that duty was subject to judicial review under §706(1). The US Supreme Court reversed and said that the claims were not reviewable. The US Supreme Court found there were five general types of actions that would be reviewable: An order, a rule, a license, a sanction, or a grant of relief. FLPMA required BLM to undertake "supervision and monitoring" which is none of those things. The Court found that the FLPMA requires that BLM achieve its objective, but does not mandate how that objective is to be achieve.  It also does not ban ORV.  Therefore BLM didn't fail to take a mandatory action, and their decision is not judicially reviewable. The Court found that unlike a specific statutory command requiring an agency to promulgate a regulation by a certain date, a land use plan is generally a statement of priorities.  It guides and constrains action, but does not prescribe them.  Therefore it does not rise to the level of an action. The Court found that "will do" projections of agency action set forth in land use plans are not a legally binding commitment enforceable under §706(1).