Opinion
PARKER, Justice.
Alabama Rivers Alliance and Friends of Hurricane Creek (hereinafter collectively referred to as “ARA”) petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Civil Appeals' decision reversing a judgment of the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court (“the trial court”) dismissing an appeal by Tuscaloosa Resources, Inc. (“TRI”), of a decision of the Environmental Management Commission (“the Commission”). See Tuscaloosa Res., Inc. v. Alabama Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt., 165 So.3d 591 (Ala.Civ.App.2013). The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (“ADEM”) oversees the Commission. We granted certiorari review to consider whether the Court of Civil Appeals' decision conflicts with this Court's decision in Price v. South Central Bell, 294 Ala. 144, 313 So.2d 184 (1975), and the Court of Civil Appeals' decision in Personnel Board of Jefferson County v. Bailey, 475 So.2d 863 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). See Rule 39(a)(1)(D), Ala. R.App. P. For the following reasons, we conclude that the Court of Civil Appeals' decision in this case does conflict with Price and Bailey, and we reverse its judgment.
Facts and Procedural HistoryIn Tuscaloosa Resources, the Court of Civil Appeals set forth the relevant facts and procedural history, as follows:
“TRI sought a water-pollution permit from ADEM. The Alabama Rivers Alliance and Friends of Hurricane Creek (hereinafter referred to collectively as ‘ARA’) challenged the issuance of the permit through ADEM's administrative-appeals process. One of the grounds TRI asserted in its defense of the issuance of the permit was whether ARA had standing to contest the permit. At the evidentiary hearing of the matter, TRI presented evidence regarding the standing issue. After the hearing, the hearing officer submitted his recommendations to the Commission. In turn, the Commission entered an order adopting the hearing officer's recommendation, which, among other things, concluded that ARA did have standing to contest the permit, and it upheld the issuance of the permit to TRI.
“TRI appealed the Commission's order to the trial court.[ 1 ] The trial court noted that, by statute, only aggrieved parties can appeal a decision of the Commission to the circuit court and found that TRI was not a ‘person aggrieved by the administrative action’ of the Commission. Therefore, the trial court held, it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal, and it dismissed TRI's appeal.”
165 So.3d at 591–92.
This case concerns TRI's standing to appeal the Commission's final decision in TRI's favor. The facts related to TRI's standing to appeal the decision are not in dispute; thus, only a question of law is presented for our review. This Court reviews questions of law de novo. National Ins. Ass'n v. Sockwell, 829 So.2d 111 (Ala.2002) ; Moss v. Williams, 822 So.2d 392 (Ala.2001) ; and Reed v. Board of Trs. of Alabama State Univ., 778 So.2d 791 (Ala.2000). See also New L & N Sales & Marketing, Inc. v. Revson, 29 Fed.Appx. 582, 582 (Fed.Cir.2002) (not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter )(“Whether a party has standing to appeal is a question of law that we review de novo. ”); Garrison v. Garrison, 8 So.3d 904, 906 (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (“Whether a party has standing to appeal a trial court's judgment is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo.”); and Anderson v. Access Med. Ctrs., 263 P.3d 328, 330 (Okla.Civ.App.2011) (“ ‘Whether a party lacks standing to appeal is a question of law, which this Court reviews de novo....’ ” (quoting In re Baby W., 220 P.3d 32, 32 (Okla.Civ.App.2009) )).
In Tuscaloosa Resources, the main opinion set forth the law the Court of Civil Appeals applied, as follows:
“This case does not involve issues related to the Commission's procedures when hearing the appeal of an action taken by ADEM, see § 22–22A–7, Ala.Code 1975; therefore, our review of this case is governed by the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act (‘AAPA’), § 41–22–20, Ala.Code 1975. See Alabama Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt. v. Legal Envtl. Assistance Found., Inc., 973 So.2d 369, 375 n. 3 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (quoting Plumbers & Steamfitters, Local 52 v. Alabama Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt., 647 So.2d 793, 794–95 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) (“ ‘because [the case] concerns a matter unrelated to the perfecting of an appeal, judicial review of a decision of the Commission is governed by §§ 41–22–20 and –21’ ”)).
“Section 41–22–20 provides, in pertinent part:
“ ‘(a) A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency, other than rehearing, and who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review under this chapter.’
“(Emphasis added.)
“Black's Law Dictionary 1232 (9th ed.2009) defines an ‘aggrieved party’ as ‘[a] party entitled to a remedy; esp., a party whose personal, pecuniary, or property rights have been adversely affected by another person's actions or by a court's decree or judgment.’ In Alabama Department of Environmental Management v. Friends of Hurricane Creek, 114 So.3d 47, 51 (Ala.Civ.App.2012), this court discussed what constituted an ‘aggrieved’ person under the AAPA.
“ ‘We start with the proposition that, for a person to demonstrate standing to seek relief in the courts of Alabama, that person must show “ ‘(1) an actual concrete and particularized “injury in fact”—“an invasion of a legally protected interest”; (2) a “causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of”; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” ’ ” Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 974 So.2d 288, 293 (Ala.2007) (quoting Stiff v. Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 878 So.2d 1138, 1141 (Ala.2003), quoting in turn Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) ). Those elements of an actual or imminent injury, causation, and redressability, which have their origins in the “case or controversy” interpretive jurisprudence pertaining to Article III of the United States Constitution, amount to constitutional minima, at least as to the judicial branch. See Hollywood Mobile Estates, Ltd. v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 641 F.3d 1259, 1265 (11th Cir.2011) ; see also Pharmacia Corp. v. Suggs, 932 So.2d 95, 97 n. 4 (Ala.[2005] ) (indicating that Section 139 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 similarly empowers this state's judiciary to “ ‘decide discrete cases and controversies involving particular parties and specific facts' ” rather than answering abstract questions) (quoting Alabama Power Co. v. Citizens of Alabama, 740 So.2d 371, 381 (Ala.1999) ); but see Climax Molybdenum Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 703 F.2d 447, 451 (10th Cir.1983) (indicating that administrative agencies are not bound by constitutional “case or controversy” requirements).’ ”
165 So.3d at 592–93.
After setting forth the above law, the Court of Civil Appeals proceeded to analyze Bailey, supra:
“In Bailey, a deputy sheriff filed a grievance with the Jefferson County Personnel Board (‘the Board’) complaining that Sheriff Bailey had improperly transferred him from patrol duty to jail duty. The Board found that the deputy sheriff's complaint was ‘grievable’ and then, after a hearing on the merits, entered a decision reinstating the deputy sheriff to the patrol division. 475 So.2d at 865. Sheriff Bailey appealed the decision to the circuit court, seeking a judgment declaring that matters of job assignment were within the prerogative of the sheriff and not subject to review by the Board. The circuit court determined that the deputy sheriff's complaint was a matter properly considered by the Board but also held that the Board's reinstatement of the deputy sheriff to patrol duty was arbitrary and capricious. The deputy sheriff appealed to this court, and Sheriff Bailey cross-appealed. Id.
“The deputy sheriff asserted that, because Sheriff Bailey had prevailed, he did not have standing to cross-appeal. However, this court concluded that, because the circuit court's decision ‘could have a prejudicial effect on [Sheriff Bailey's] authority to assign and discipline subordinates in his department,’ he had the right to cross-appeal the finding that the complaint was ‘grievable.’ Id. at 866.”
Tuscaloosa Resources, 165 So.3d at 593.
Based on its analysis of Bailey, the Court of Civil Appeals then stated:
“We find the rationale set forth in Bailey to be applicable in this case. TRI sought a ruling that ARA did not have standing to challenge the water-pollution permit that ADEM had issued. It argues that, in holding that ARA had standing, the Commission's ruling subjects TRI to additional litigation, that is, TRI now must take on the expense and risk required to defend ARA's appeal of the Commission's decision in the Montgomery Circuit Court. However, if the trial court in the underlying appeal reverses the Commission's ruling on the issue of ARA's standing, TRI would not be required to address the merits of the issuance of the permit. Furthermore, we agree with TRI that the Commission's ruling weakens procedural protections against challenges to any permits TRI might require for future operations. Therefore, we conclude that TRI has demonstrated that it was aggrieved by the Commission's decision that ARA had standing to challenge the permit.”
Tuscaloosa Resources, 165 So.3d at 593–94. Accordingly, the Court of Civil Appeals held that the trial court had erred in dismissing TRI's appeal.
In its petition for certiorari review, ARA alleges that the main opinion in Tuscaloosa Resources conflicts with Price, supra, and Bailey, supra. Specifically,...
