In this section we suggest you an overview of environmental case law both of the Supreme Court and other instances of the United State
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CASES
Whether in some circumstances the Military preparedness may outweigh environmental concerns.
Holding
In balancing military preparedness against environmental concerns, the majority came down solidly on the side of national security. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his opinion, “the most serious possible injury would be harm to an unknown number of marine mammals that they study and observe.” By contrast, he continued, “forcing the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained antisubmarine force jeopardizes the safety of the fleet.”
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council- U.S. Supreme Court
Issue
Whether the court may impose rulemaking procedures on a federal government agency.
Holding
US Supreme Court held that a court cannot impose rulemaking procedures on a federal government agency.
The federal Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 and an agency's statutory mandate from Congress establish the minimum requirements for an agency's rulemaking (and adjudicative) process. An agency may grant additional procedural rights in the regulatory process (within constitutional and statutory limits), but a reviewing court cannot "impose upon the agency its own notion of which procedures are 'best' or most likely to further some vague, undefined public good." (435 U.S. at 549.) To do so would exceed the limits of judicial review of agency action.
United States v. Weitzenhoff-Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Issue
What does constitute word "knowingly" in terms of criminal sanctions?
Holding
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ddresses the confusing mensrea requirement of a federal environmental law that imposed criminal sanctions on certain polluters. The main significance of the court's opinion was that it interpreted the word "knowingly" in the statute (that is, a requirement that the violator "knowingly" violated another section of the environmental statute) to mean a general awareness of the wrongfulness of one's actions or the likelihood of illegality, rather than an actual knowledge of the statute being violated. Circuit Court Judge Betty Binns Fletcher authored the majority's legal opinion in this case.
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc - US Supreme Court
Issue
Standing of the residents of the area in environmental matters.
Holding
The Court held that the plaintiff residents in the area of South Carolina's North Tyger River had standing to sue an industrial polluter, against whom various deterrent civil penalties were being pursued. Standing was properly based on the fact that the residents alleged that they would have used the river for recreational purposes, but could not because of the pollution.
Issue
Standing of wildlife conservation and other environmental organizations in environmental matters.
Holding
On June 12, 1992, in which the court held that a group of American wildlife conservation and other environmental organizations lacked standing to challenge regulations jointly issued by the U.S. Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, regarding the geographic area to which a particular section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973applied. The case arose over issues of US funding of development projects in Aswan and Mahaweli that could harm endangered species in the affected areas.
In this decision, Court made clear that plaintiffs must suffer a concrete, discernible injury. It, in effect, made it more difficult for plaintiffs to challenge the actions of a government agency when the actions don't directly affect them.
Text is not available
Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission-U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Issue
Standing of the group of citizens in environmental matters .
Holding
Court granted standing to Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference on the basis of aesthetic or environmental benefits. In this case a public group of citizens, the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference, organized and initiated legal action after the Federal Power Commission approved plans for Consolidated Edison to construct a power plant on Storm King Mountain, New York. It was questioned whether the group could bring action, but they were found to have legal standing because of their "special interest in aesthetic, conservational, and recreational aspects" of the mountain.
Text
U.S. Supreme Court
Issue
Standing of persons in environmental matters.
Holding
A person has standing to seek judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act only if he can show that he himself has suffered or will suffer injury, whether economic or otherwise. In this case, where petitioner asserted no individualized harm to itself or its members, it lacked standing to maintain the action.
Text
United States v. SCRAP - U.S. Supreme Court
Issue
Standing of law students in environmental cases
Holding
Court held that the members of SCRAP – five law students from The George Washington University – had standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution to challenge a nationwide railroad freight rate increase approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). SCRAP was the first full-court consideration of the American National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Court also reversed the lower court decision that an injunction should be issued at the suspension stage of the ICC rate proceeding. The standing decision has retained its place as the high mark in the Court’s standing jurisprudence.
TextU.S. Supreme Court
Issue
Whether during the licensing of nuclear power plants, the permanent storage of nuclear waste should be assumed to have no environmental impact.
Holding
NRC rule that nuclear plant licensing hearings would assume that the permanent storage of nuclear waste would have no environmental impact was valid.
TextU.S. Supreme Court
Issue
Whether Coeur Alaska Army Corps of Engineers was the appropriate agency to permit to dispose of up to 4.5 million tons of tailings in Lower Slate Lake, which is located in a National Forest.
Holding
The Army Corps of Engineers was the appropriate agency to permit the disposal of mine waste material into Lower Slate Lake.
Whether the interpretation of the word 'harm' under section 9(a)(1) on "takings" of the “Endangered Species Act” includes habitat modification or destruction when it may kill or injure wildlife.
Holding
Definition of "harm," within the meaning of the Endangered Species Act defines "take," as including "significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures wildlife," was reasonable.
Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co.- New York's highest court
Issue
Whether payment of permanent damages were an appropriate remedy in lieu of a permanent injunction. The case was one of the first and most influential instances of a court applying permanent damages.
Holding
The court granted an injunction against the cement plant for nuisance, but permitted the plant to pay permanent damages after which the court would vacate the injunction.
Issue
Weather each state in its sovereign capacity holds permanent title to all submerged lands within its borders and holds these lands in public trust.
Holding
In this case the Court reaffirmed that each state in its sovereign capacity holds permanent title to all submerged lands within its borders and holds these lands in public trust. This is a foundational case for the public trust doctrine. The Supreme Court held a four to three split decision that the State of Illinois did not possess the authority to grant fee title to submerged lands held in the public trust as navigable waters.
TextNational Audubon Society v. Superior Court- Supreme Court of California
Issue
The public trust doctrine and appropriative water rights.
Holding
The case of National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (Supreme Court of California, 1983) was a key case in California highlighting the conflict between the public trust doctrine and appropriative water rights. The Public Trust Doctrine is based on the principle that certain resources (such as navigable waters) are too valuable to be privately owned and must remain available for public use. In National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, the court held that the public trust doctrine restricts the amount of water that can be withdrawn from navigable waterways.
Interpretation of the Clean Water Act regulations with regard to cooling water intakes for power plants. The importance of this case is whether the agency may use a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) in choosing the Best Available Technology (BAT) to meet the National performance standards (NPS).
Holding
Existing facilities are mandated to use the "Best Technology Available" to "minimize the adverse environmental impact." Reversing a lower court opinion, in a 5 - 1 - 3 ruling the court decided to uphold EPA's decision as reasonable to allow CBA when determining BAT to maintain national environmental standards.
TextRapanos v. United States- U.S. Supreme Court
Issue
Whether the Clean Water act regulation covers the wetlands.
Holding
The Clean Water Act governs discharges to "navigable waters." Although the law contains language defining navigable waters as "waters of the United States," the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the position of the Army Corps of Engineers that its authority over water was essentially limitless under the Clean Water Act.
In Rapanos v. United States, the Supreme Court clarified that the term "waters of the United States" "includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water 'forming geographic features' that are described in ordinary parlance as 'streams ... oceans, rivers, (and) lakes.'"
TextIssue
Whether the hydroelectric dams fall under the section 401 of the Clean Water Act, thus are subject to licensing.
Holding
The Court ruled unanimously that hydroelectric dams were subject to section 401 of the Act, which conditioned federal licensing for a licensed activity that could result in "any discharge" into navigable waters upon the receipt of a state certification that water protection laws would not be violated. The Court believed that since the Act did not define the word "discharge" it should be given its ordinary meaning, such that the simple flowing forth of water from a dam qualified.
Because the outflow of water from a hydroelectric dam constitutes a "discharge" into navigable waters, it is subject to the Clean Water Act's requirement of state certification. Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.
The content has been created under the US State Department and American Councils Legislative Fellowship Program.
Today, the candle lighting in memory of the 1.5 million innocent victims of the Armenian Genocide was organized in the foyer of YSU main building.
25 higher educational institutions founded in Yekaterinburg the University League of the Collective Security Treaty Organization.
April 22 is The Earth Day, so the environmentalists once again raised the environmental issues.
The presentation of the book “If we remain silent, the stones would cry out” was held at YSU today. It is based on the memories of the Genocide survivor Hrachya Gevorgyan.
On April 6-12 YSU students participated in the International Youth Forum “Lomonosov 2014”.