The court holds that the National Park Service's decision to remove a herd of 12 horses from Santa Cruz Island in the Channel Islands did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court first holds that the plaintiff foundation provided no support for its assertion that the horse...
The court holds that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' and the Natural Resources Conservation Service's decision to construct a dam on the Hughes River in West Virginia complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In a prior decision, the court directed the agencies to take a hard loo...
The court holds that a North Carolina town and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) did not violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in connection with the siting of a wastewater treatment facility in an African-American neighborhood. The court fi...
The court holds that the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act (FMSHA) did not authorize the Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission's (FMSHRC's) issuance of a significant and substantial finding to a mine for failure to comply with the nonmandatory requirement of investigating refuse pile c...
The court holds that the failure of the United States to regulate the passage of a ship carrying nuclear waste through waters in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is not a major federal action. Therefore, the court dismisses an environmental group's National Environmental Policy Act claims agai...
The court holds that a Native American council and an environmental group lack standing under the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to challenge a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) order authorizing a Canadian power generator to sell power in the Unit...
The government use of compulsory purchase and land use control powers appears to be increasing worldwide as competition for useable and livable space increases. The need for large and relatively undeveloped space for agriculture and conservation purposes often competes with the need for shelter and the commercial and industrial development accompanying such development for employment, product production and distribution, and other largely urban uses.
Editors' Summary: Property rights advocates implicitly complained in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon that a Fish and Wildlife Service regulation that aimed to protect endangered and threatened species by defining "harm" to include habitat modification impinged on their rights as private landowners by asking them to share with the government responsibility for protecting such species. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the regulation as reasonable given the relevant language of the Endangered Species Act.
The bedrock notion that courts should, in the overwhelming majority of cases, defer to lawmakers is currently under attack in the nation's courts, commentary, and classrooms. Leading the way are several U.S. Supreme Court Justices who, in cases involving the U.S. Commerce Clause, Takings Clause, and §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, are much more willing than their immediate predecessors to second-guess the motives and tactics of elected and appointed officials at all levels of government.
In November 1995, five federal agencies—the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—issued joint guidance concerning wetland mitigation banking. The guidance's chief virtue is its detailed explanation of the approval process for the establishment and operation of mitigation banks. Its chief flaw, however, flows from the complexity of this approval process.